FORTHCOMING EVENTS

Thursday, 18 January 2007. Dr. T.J. Lambshead will speak on taxonomy of deep sea organisms.

Wednesday, 23 May 2007. AGM to be held in NHM, London . Speaker also to be confirmed.

November 2006 to 29 April 2007. Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition. There will be a review in the next issue.

DARWIN CENTRE PHASE 2

Work continues on the construction of the Darwin Centre Phase 2 (DC2). It is sad to report that one building unfit for purpose (for health and safety reasons) is being replaced by another that is probably equally unfit for purpose but in other ways, certainly in terms of a significant shortfall in storage space available for the collections and in suitable office space for the dedicated staff that care for them. For the office space, there is a particularly serious defect with regard to the effectiveness with which biosystematics, essentially collections-based, can be undertaken. In the old building, the various functions of this activity, including access to various additional resources such as key literature, were closely located. In the new, these will become widely dispersed, far more than is necessary for improving the protection of the collections and more than was originally promised. Other health and safety aspects may arise, such as the need for good, preferably natural, illumination in what is an intensely optical science. This will be particularly serious for staff working in the two floors set aside for public viewing of routine work of the Departments concerned.

There is no sign that staff suggestions on these subjects were listened to and incorporated at the planning stage, though a consultancy firm was brought in to assess the ways in which research on the collections was undertaken in the old building in order to ensure that efficient methods of working that had evolved over decades would be translated as far as possible into the new. Working space for the current staff complement available in the new building falls well short of that recommended in the report arising from this exercise, perhaps sacrificed in part for ‘state-of-the-art’ laboratories that nevertheless do not fulfil the requirements outlined above and are not essential for much of the basic biosystematic spadework that is urgently needed.

Where did all this go wrong? The NHM, which a few years ago adopted an admirable policy of disclosure and accountability in publishing, within one month, the Minutes of the Board of Trustees’ meetings, has now retreated again into disclosure on the NHM website after a two year delay. So it is hard to be entirely certain. However there appear to be three areas inviting the spotlight of accountability:

1. Very senior figures in NHM were determined that a Darwin Centre Phase 2 should follow DC1 with a degree of haste which is in retrospect regrettable. Health and safety problems, which were used to justify the precipitate demolition of the old Entomology Building, were in certain respects valid. However, through the life of the old building, they had not changed in character (though H & S regulations might have done) to an extent which justified the ill-considered haste which ensued, and many could have been remedied during this period by improved storage of specimen drawers to minimise fire risks and potential pest access, avoiding the necessity of chemical remedy.

2. The Trustees singularly failed to scrutinise effectively management proposals for DC2. Had they done so, they might have picked up the discrepancy between storage space required as originally specified to architects in 2001, and the lesser amount implicit in the cocoon design when originally presented. This discrepancy was later obscured, either through lack of attention to detail or deliberately by the Directorate in the ‘fit-for-purpose’ note submitted to the Trustees in 2004.

3. The NHM management may well have wilfully misled the Trustees over the discrepancy noted in 2 above; certainly they would appear to have been negligent in not declaring a space shortfall at this stage, when it was probably already evident. They seem also to have behaved discreditably much earlier over the competition to choose the architects; it was for this that the detailed measurements of 2001 were prepared. At this stage, many involved in the planning, particularly the scientists, were led to believe that the designs submitted were far from final, and there was ample room for modification and flexibility (or even a total rethink) within cost constraints to ensure the design finally adopted was indeed fit-for-purpose. The Keepers concerned assumed that, once the architects were selected, they would be able to discuss with them certain key points in the original design; indeed, at an early stage, they were told that they, in particular, were ‘the customers’, having the best knowledge of how their Departments worked effectively. But, as the defects of the design became more evident and voiced, the Keepers were peremptorily told that the design was final, their remonstrations were ignored, and they were excluded from the decision process thereafter.

In this day and age it is no longer customary for anyone to take responsibility for flawed decisions and actions (though the ENRON debacle may be salutary in this respect): indeed several of the major players have already left the NHM, having largely painted their successors into a corner. But there is no harm in pointing out such errors. Those responsible may at least wriggle uneasily for a moment or two, as well they should when they contemplate a new building costing upwards of £70 million, not fit for purpose, in which, at best, UK taxonomy and systematics will struggle to retain pre-eminence and offer leadership. All this presupposes that cost can be kept within budget, and that adequate funds are in fact available to complete the building as currently planned.

Throughout this whole process, the scientific staff at the Museum have done their best, despite deepening misgivings as the saga unfolded, to provide what information they were asked for to help the planning, including detailed measurement of the space occupied by the collections, and to comment critically but constructively at frequent meetings. Much of this comment concerned those aspects already mentioned, such as adequate space for the collections, preserving efficient working practices as far as possible in a new structure, particularly with regard to location of functions and access to resources, including the collections, and quality of illumination. Promises that were made to them have not been kept, such as over the need to avoid a ‘goldfish bowl’ situation where working was viewed by the public. Yet the design appears to have produced both a goldfish bowl and a fish tank in the very core of the cocoon. At one meeting a retired senior member of staff, who still devoted much time to voluntary work in the Museum, challenged the breaking of a promise of 10% for collections expansion, itself considered miserly when included in the 2001 specifications, and was told that that had been wishful thinking and that this (now) was the ‘real world’. In fact, by then, it was already becoming apparent that there was significant shortfall of space for even the extant collections! For ‘real world’ read ‘SNAFU’. The expressions ‘wishful thinking’ and ‘real world’ thereafter became part of the NHM lexicon of black humour. The staff might be forgiven now for nurturing feelings of betrayal.

The major feature of the new building, the part housing the collections, is referred to as the ‘cocoon’, and there is occasional reference to the ‘cocoon metaphor’, essentially the protection of the collections, but perhaps more apt than its promoters intended. Insects with more than one active phase in their life cycle, such as caterpillar and moth, spin a cocoon as a protection for a largely dormant and very vulnerable phase of transition, or metamorphosis, within a pupa from one active phase to another. It often, but not always, occurs when outside conditions are unfavourable, such as winter or a dry season. This involves a major breakdown of tissues and reconstruction of the body of the insect into the active, adult phase, which finally emerges through a process known as eclosion. It is ironic, therefore, that the insects most likely to be excluded from DC2 because of the shortage of space are those renowned cocoon-builders, the moths! These represent almost a fifth of the space of the insect collections.

What positive steps can now be taken? While it is clear that for some years everyone will have to make the best of an appalling muddle, careful thought should now be given to the longer term future of these incomparable collections. Ultimately they must be reunited in a building that is fit for purpose in a locality that offers greater environmental security than the Thames flood plain and is at a greater distance from potential terrorist actions. The collections also need to be brought under a more appropriate funding regime than that offered by DCMS: one that takes into account first and foremost the responsibilities owed to the numerous national and international stakeholders in the stewardship of collections of global scope and importance that provide a vital foundation for addressing the biodiversity crisis. Debate on these issues should commence as soon as possible.

An essential corollary to this is to ensure that the stewardship is conducted into the future by an adequate corps of curators and researchers with deep experience of the systematics of at least the major groups of organisms, particularly insects. This is best done by maintaining threads of continuity in this experience, with younger staff receiving mentorship from those approaching retirement. The current age profile in Entomology means that many such threads have already been broken or will be shortly. Again, time is of the essence for rebuilding the corps of specialist staff, but there is a strong possibility that any funding shortfall for the DC2 project will be made good through cuts elsewhere, such as recruitment after retirement.

In parallel, it is important that the Board of Trustees be rebalanced so that there are always on it at least two members with significant biosystematic interests and experience, not necessarily yet retired, who have interacted with the collections for a substantial part of their careers, who understand their international importance and can therefore speak for the many stakeholders in them outside the U.K., particularly in countries from which there are significant holdings in type material. These Trustees would be charged specifically with liaising with any international board of advisors of the type recommended in the previous newsletter and with scrutinising, as a priority, developments in the care and maintenance of the collections and associated information resources.

Sense & Nonsense in Zoological Nomenclature by Dr Andrew Polascek of The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

On Tuesday ,10 October Dr Polascek gave a talk to about 15 Friends at the NHM, entitled “Sense & Nonsense in Zoological Nomenclature.”

He started by explaining that the Secretariat of the Commission (ICZN) has for many years been housed in the NHM, but the Commissioners, who make the decisions on issues of nomenclature placed before them come from all round the world.

He drew a clear distinction between taxonomy: the description and classification of organisms, and systematics, involving the discovering and describing of evolutionary relationships.

The naming of organisms has crossed all cultures and boundaries, from the ancient Greeks (and doubtless much earlier) to the Iroquois. Aristotle first distinguished between plants and animals in his Historia Animalium, and by dissection established the differences between whales and dolphins, on the one hand, and fish on the other. His successor, Theophrastus, in his Historia Plantarum, first developed the use of generic typification. Pliny the Elder took this work further in his Natural History of Exotic Lands.

However it was not until the eighteenth century A.D. that a Swede, Carl Linnaeus (born Carl Nilsson), inspired by Joseph Pitton de Tournefort, in France and John Reay in England developed in a scientific manner binomial names – the generic name followed by the specific name. Linnaeus himself was a botanist, but the basic nomenclatural principles which he established were applicable both to plants and animals. Later these were developed into different codes, botanical and zoological. The latter, with which we are concerned dates from his 10th edition of Systema Naturae of 1758. (The earlier botanical code dates from 1735).

The Zoological Code depends for it basis on having, and preserving with public access what is known as the type specimen. This is the specimen to which reference must be made to determine whether a similar sample represents the same or new species. The preservation of types is thus crucial to the stability of the system of nomenclature. One prominent species which does not have a designated type is Homo sapiens. The late W G Stearne suggested that the corpse of Linnaeus should be so designated. This however is somewhat impractical as he currently lies firmly interred under a heavy stone memorial in Stockholm .

Dr Polascek provided examples of ribald, insulting and purely quirky names. The most prolific modern taxonomist he believes was Alexandre Arsene Girault (1884-1941), a retired French grocer and describer of more than 3,000 taxa of parasitic wasps. (However the notorious F. Walker in the late nineteenth century, who described and frequently redescribed moths on a commission basis must run him a close second.)

The longest name is too long to print here. The shortest is Ia io. Hitler was commemorated by one Scheibel in 1937, with a blind cave dwelling beetle, Anophthalmus hitleri, while the previous Keeper of Entomology, Dr Quentin Wheeler, currently active in ICZN, recently described three slime mould beetles as Agathidium bushi, A. cheneyi and A. rumsfeldi, for which he received one day in NHM a personal telephone message of congratulation from the President.

ICZN was officially established in 1895, in response to the problems and lack of rules governing zoological nomenclature. It started with 28 Commissioners, and now has 20 from around the world. They work unpaid, currently under the Presidency of Dr Denis Brothers of South Africa. The Commission is dedicated to achieving stability in zoological nomenclature. It publishes a Bulletin, recording the decisions of appeals, and periodically publishes updated versions of the Code. The first, known as the Règles was published in 1905, the first full code in 1961. The current (4th) code dates from 1999, is very technical, is published in French and is available on the web. Its rules have been adopted by the International Union of Biological Sciences, and last year the Commission became a member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

In the early days of zoological collection, it was considered essential that a physical specimen of a species be retained as the type. This restriction has now been eased, to enable an illustration to be used. There is an argument for a more specific approach which would allow blood, DNA or fecal samples to be used. In the case of fossil specimens, where the causative organism has not survived, its imprints, in the form patterns of leaf eating may be used. They are known as ichnotypes.

Further problems are provided by anomalous organisms which could be described as either plant or animal: biregnal organisms, which sometimes get named in each kingdom. They include slime moulds and protists.

In some cases individuals or institutions have paid significant sums of money to have organisms named after them. The case was cited of a gambling casino which paid to have a rare Tanzanian monkey named in its honour.

Since 1999 arrangements have been in place for internet publishing. Yet there remain problems associated with publication in languages less widespread than English. It would be desirable for a register to be established: this would at least help avoid synonymy and produce a 100% complete database, from the time the register was established. It would not however tackle the thickets of synonymy which have arisen from the injudicious enthusiasm of (mainly nineteenth century) amateur entomologists.

Such a register would operate with an online registration form, which could be used pre- and post publication, on occasion by third parties wishing to register names given validly by others. A code for identifying could be devised (Life Science Identifiers) and it could incorporate sequences in the Genebank, a major resource.

There are currently some 1.6 million valid taxon names, with the zoological names exceeding those of plants in a ratio of approximately 10 to 1.

Dr Polascek concluded with the thought that 2008 is the 250th anniversary of Linnaeus’ seminal 1758 Systema Naturae.

After a question and answer session, Prof Eric Moonman thanked Dr Polascek for his extremely stimulating talk, and announced that as a gesture of thanks, the Friends would make a contribution to putting on the Web all earlier taxonomic decisions by ICZN.

Homo britannicus: The Incredible Story of Human Life in Britain. Allen Lane, 2006, 320 pp. Hb. ISBN 13: 978-0-713-99795-8

Friends who were privileged to hear the talk given by Chris Stringer in October 2002 will welcome this attractively produced book which sets out the story so far of the ancient human occupation of Britain (AHOB). The AHOB team, headed by Stringer, have for several years been working to provide as comprehensive as possible an account of the earliest human occupiers of this country.

The story turns out to be a far longer, and more convoluted one than had ever been imagined. Its resolution to date has involved the use of a wide variety of disciplines, way beyond archaeology. These include mammalian palaeontology, entomology, geology and DNA studies.

The talk has been complicated by significant periods during which most of the northern part of the country was covered by massive glaciers which effectively gouged away all evidence of earlier human habitation in more benign climatic periods. Moreover for the vast majority of the last 700,000 years, Britain was not an island but a peninsula jutting out from the landmass of north west Europe . Thanks to the climate changes, our predecessors shared what is now Britain with a startling array of other animals, from woolly mammoths, elephants, lions and macaques to bears, giant oxen (aurochs), hippos and large savage scimitar-toothed cats. Many of these are of course now extinct, but the dates of their extinction, often derived from fossil records elsewhere in Europe provide key markers which have enabled the team accurately to date the human remains found in association with such bone assemblages. More recent assemblages often contain remains of a number of beetle species. Many of these species still survive, and a study of their current habits and climatic tolerances make it possible to form a very accurate idea of the climatic conditions which prevailed. These varied from icy tundra, to significantly warmer climates than we are currently experiencing. A useful summary is tucked away, too unobtrusively on page 300.

The history of the various species of the genus Homo starts in Africa over 2 million years ago.

Subsequently migrations occurred out of north-east Africa, spreading, spreading along the southern coastline of Asia to S E Asia and eventually, much later 40-60,000 years b.p. to Australasia.

Excavations in the last twenty years however have proved that as early as 1.7 million years b.p. primitive humans were living in western Asia, in what is now Georgia . Before 1993, it was believed that no primitive humans had reached Britain before the massive Anglian ice advance of 450,000 years b.p. However excavations at Boxgrove near Chichester have revealed earlier traces of humans. At the same time archaeological investigations in Europe were showing the existence of early human presence significantly earlier, 780,000 years b.p. This dating was confirmed by the presence in the same sites of remains of a primitive vole, whose extinction date was accurately determined elsewhere from the fossil record. Critical evidence has more recently emerged from the rapidly eroding coastline of East Anglia which has exposed deposits which significantly predated the Anglian ice advance.

The Pakefield site in particular, although no human remains have yet been found there, pushes the earliest human occupation of Britain back to some 700,000 years b.p.

The subsequent occupation of Britain has been sporadic, insofar as we can currently tell from the archaeological record. Early humans moved across the extensive land bridge from northern Europe when conditions were mild, and perished or retreated at the onset of glacial conditions. Yet a mystery remains, for between 400,000 – 100,000 years b.p. there is virtually no sign of human activity. It is a gap which is hard to explain.

Thereafter, the record is clearer, as the Neanderthals spread from Europe, and in due course were eclipsed by Cro-Magnon man, without interbreeding, as far as can be seen from DNA records. Yet even in the last 100,000 years, human habitation has not been continuous. The earliest date from which we Brits can plausibly trace our ancestry is a mere 11,000 years ago. It saves us at least from the charges of being descended from the inhabitants of the caves of the Cheddar Gorge less than 16,000 years ago: for there is some evidence that they may have been cannibals. A period known as the Younger Dryas, marked by a sudden and severe decline in temperatures, by some 15°C, lasting a mere 1000 years, seems to have wiped out the inhabitants of the Cheddar Gorge. We thus find ourselves descended from their successors, yet another group of hunter gatherers, who moved up from Europe .

Chris Stringer devotes the last chapter of his book to a consideration of the major climatic fluctuations which have, more than any other factor, determined the ebb and flow of pre-human and human populations in Britain over the last 700,000 years. In every case the determining factor was the onset of a cold spell which rendered conditions inhospitable. On occasion this was caused by the closing down of the Gulf Stream , bringing warm water from the Carribean region to ameliorate the otherwise harsh climate of north western Europe. There is, he points out, a good chance that this may recur in the near future. More alarming however is his belief, shared by the vast majority of serious scientists studying the issue, that human activities are about to tip earth’s delicate climatic balances into a state of permanent diseqilibrium. This will lead to a climate which is significantly hotter worldwide with potentially catastrophic consequences for the human race. For the first time in human history we have to hand the methodology which enables us to understand the climatic catastrophe which we face, and which we have brought upon ourselves. Do we have the sagacity to take the necessary preemptive action before it is too late?

DINO JAWS EXHIBITION

The NHM’s Dino Jaws exhibition is currently running, till 15 April 2007.

The exhibition, which features ten life-like moving dinosaurs, investigates their very different eating, and other habits.

Advance booking is strongly recommended. Call 020 7942 5000 for details.

For other NHM talks and activities, ring the same number or visit the NHM website at <www.nhm.ac.uk>

FNHM Newsletter – December 2006

Views expressed in this Newsletter should not be taken to reflect those of the Trustees or the Directorate of the Natural History Museum.

FORTHCOMING EVENTS

Tuesday, 22 May 2007 - 11.00 a.m. AGM to be held in NHM, London . Please note change of date. Our speaker will be Dr Michael Dixon, Director of NHM, who will give an update on Darwin Centre Phase 2.

Till 29 April 2007. Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition. There is a review in this issue.

October 2007. Date & speaker to be arranged.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Please note that the account of Dr Lambshead’s talk is being deferred to our next edition.

Letter to Editor

Thank you very much indeed for sending me the latest details of the campaign, in the FNHM Newsletters. I think it’s amazing the way you’ve stuck to your guns on this, though there’s obviously still a lot to fight for. Such dereliction of duty does seem, quite literally, to be unbelievable.

Jonathon Porritt,

Founder Director, Forum Business Programme.

Note. We have independently been informed that the issue of Darwin Centre Phase 2 has been placed in front of the Culture, Media & Sport Committee of the House of Commons, which, under the chairmanship of John Whittingdale MP is conducting an enquiry into ‘Caring for our Collections’.

NHM Annual Review

2005 - 2006

WALK THE TALK

The arrival of the Annual Review of NHM (a little late this year) provides a welcome opportunity for an overview of the Museum’s plans, policies and achievements.

There are a number of changes in the content compared to previous years. The omission of publications by Museum staff and associates is one. An academic institution stands or falls to a large extent on the number of peer reviewed books or articles written by its staff. Although this information is no doubt available on the NHM website, by diligent searching, it is useful to have it summarized in hard copy.

Starting at the back of the report, it would be helpful if the contacts page also gave email addresses.

The annual report always gives a summary of the NHM finances. This year is no exception. However

the netting of income with certain items of expenditure is confusing. It would make more sense to show all items of expenditure together. If this were to be done, current expenditure for the last 2 years is as follows:

04/05 05/06

£ K £ K

‘Current’ Expenditure 36,831.6 43,356.2

‘Costs’ 11,327.8 11,492.7

‘Costs’ 1,754.5 1,701.7

49,904.9 56,550.6

Most of the increase in costs is due to higher expenditure on exhibitions and education (almost double, to nearly £6 million) and an almost £2 million increase in estates services.

On the income side, this is matched by £2.2 million increase in self generated and trading income, and £1.8 million increase in grant in aid.

Sale of building, raising £9,035.2 million, as forecast last year, refers to the disposal of part of the Wandsworth site. The accounting for this significant item is peculiar. Under normal circumstances it would be highlighted as an exceptional item, being essentially a capital realization. Here it is treated as current revenue, contributing to the impression that the NHM’s finances for the year are significantly more solid than is in fact the case.

It is unfortunate that no balance sheet is provided, for without it, and the accompanying notes on the accounts, it is not possible to assess the overall strength of the organisation, let alone its ability to find the £65-70 million which will be needed over the next five years for the construction of Darwin Centre Phase 2.

The section on corporate governance confirms the Trustees’ commitment to the principle of freedom of information. It is hard to reconcile this with the failure to provide a full set of audited accounts on the NHM website. The full audited accounts are available, but require specific application to HMSO, and payment of a fee!

Under fund-raising, the major achievement of the year was the grant of £990,000 from the Leverhulme Trust for phase 2 of the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain, under Prof. Chris Stringer. This has been an enormously successful project, which still continues, and quite rightly gets a special feature article in the report. Other grants encouragingly are for taxonomic initiatives, databasing information and various biodiversity assessments.

Perhaps the most notable increase in the year under review has been the leap from 8 to over 11 million in website visits. This compares with physical visits to NHM and Tring which have remained between 3.1 - 3.3 million over the last 3 years. It emphasizes, as does the text of the report, the enormous importance which the 15,000 pages on the website has now assumed.

A further welcome mention in the report is the activity of The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) which has its headquarters in NHM. Members will be aware from a recent talk of its activities. In this report its Zoobank initiative receives special mention, with 1.5 million scientific names on its website. How long will it be before each name is matched by a digital image of the relevant species?

The main part of the review considers seven ‘drivers’ which embody the NHM’s scientific and public engagement priorities. To each of these is devoted 1-2 pages of text, explaining the NHM’s approach to the subject in more detail. Numbers four to seven are: delivering learning opportunities, engaging with a larger, more diverse audience, creating engaged and scientifically literate citizens and inspiring a lifelong commitment to the natural world. They are entirely appropriate social goals and, to judge from the results noted in this report, the NHM fulfils this role very satisfactorily.

The first three drivers are: Generating new knowledge, maintaining a major science infrastructure, and providing access to existing information. These three represent the scientific core of the NHM’s activities. The essay on generating new knowledge correctly states: ‘The scientific work undertaken at the Museum is more relevant now than it has ever been’. How true in an era of unprecedentedly swift climate change, and the threat of catatrophic extinctions.

Yet items two and three leave much to be desired. How can a major science infrastructure be maintained when retiring experts are not replaced, and increasingly large parts of the collection are being put on a care and maintenance basis? How can NHM square its commitment to providing access to existing information by permanently banishing a still unspecified part of its collections to Wandsworth - and after at least 3 years of dithering, still have no decision on what to do with the crucial sectional libraries, and the equally important departmental library, so essential for ongoing research? Finally, how are all these high sounding aims to be reconciled with a DC2 building significantly smaller than requirements? This is management by muddle, and it is time for those responsible to provide answers and solutions, and walk the talk.

Yes, financial constraints will be argued as the limiting factor in some instances at least. Here some new thinking is needed. What about a competition for the scientific research project most relevant to today’s environmental issues, which maximizes use of NHM’s unique collection resources at a cost of not more than £500,000 p.a. for 3 years? Suggestions to the editor.

Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2006 at the Natural History Museum until 29 April 2007

And at other venues in the UK until January 2008

This year’s exhibition is sponsored by Shell and, as in previous years, is organised by the Natural History Museum and “BBC Wildlife Magazine” whose November edition has an illustrated ‘portfolio’ of pictures from the exhibition. The keen competition to have your picture chosen for showing here has its origin in 1964 when “Animals”, the forerunner of the present BBC magazine, had a mere five hundred entered into its three categories of mammal, bird and other animals.

Now wildlife photography is ‘big time’, ‘high profile’, ‘all the rage’ – pick your own description – and the winning entries are ‘stunning’, ‘fantastic’, ‘fabulous’. Despite all such media ‘hype’ and misuse of the English language, it is right to acknowledge the success of the current exhibition in attracting 18,000 entries from fifty-five countries. All those competitors are entering for a few dozen prizes mostly worth a few hundred pounds each – or are they? Of course not; the chances of winning and the monetary rewards are trivial compared with the costs in time and money of securing the very best of images. Images from both poles on Earth, from deep sea to shore line; from valley to mountain top, from back garden to remotest of wild place: all are there.

It was revealing to ask Alex Mustard, a professional photographer, about the whys and wherefores of entering the competition. In previous years he has been a winner and a runner-up in various categories – there are fifteen. In 2006 he is successful with ‘Snappers in Synchrony’, a photograph taken underwater near the South Malé Atoll in the Maldives. The Paddletail Snappers were outside the shelter of the main reef and therefore exposed to attack. In that situation they respond to big swimmers like Reef Sharks and human divers by bunching into a defensive shoal. Alex photographed them when in an almost perfect disc shape, vividly coloured against the clearest of seawater for background. His splendid image in one of the animal behaviour categories is highly commended. What has been gained by his entry and commendation?

Alex explained to me that the kudos of being amongst the mere one hundred selected for display is of crucial value to a professional like himself. “Wildlife photographers don’t earn big bucks, but this exhibition is the biggest thing in our world”. Thanks to media publicity, thousands and thousands of people will have seen his, and others’, chosen images so that his reputation gets spread to the very ones whose business it is to buy the time and expertise of Alex and photographers like him. More than that for Alex are other probably unique personal benefits. One was being invited to discuss photography with the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh. The other was recognition by his brother’s school mate who, spotting the publicitiy coupled with the unusual surname, bestowed great ‘street cred.’ on that much younger sibling – a family triumph.

Another subject that Alex illuminated from his experience is digital photography. 2006 is the third year that the competition has accepted digital entries, with support from the Microsoft Corporation’s software and expertise. Digital imagery is apparent to anyone with an interest in cameras and digital ones are now affordable. For the dedicated photographer it has so many advantages that about two thirds of entries to this year’s wildlife competition and about eight in ten of the winners are digital. That is not because, with huge image storage in the camera’s memory chip, you can “use it like a machine gun”. The principal reasons are that you can see at once if images are being properly ‘exposed’; and you do not – sometimes literally – have to come up for air every thirty-six shots to re-load the camera. By doing that you would disturb an animal subject or could miss a perfect shot.

This year’s overall winning shot exemplifies those reasons. It was taken by G_ran Ehlmé of Sweden who, like Alex Mustard, is an underwater cameraman. G_ran has twenty-four years’ experience, with one thousand five hundred dives. This was the first time he had entered the competition. His winning photograph is of a Walrus feeding off bivalves on the sea floor. There is disturbed sediment like a fog all round and, emerging from it, the bristly face and two eyes of the huge mammal. The creature stares at the photographer – and you. G_ran took more than four hundred images with his new digital camera before capturing this prize-winning one. That would have been impossible at thirty-six pictures per reel before re-surfacing. The Walrus had to go up to breathe every four of five minutes, but G_ran did not. It took him years of studying Walrus’ behaviour before considering diving with them. “At first I was nervous,” he writes, ”but now I know how to approach them safely and respectfully”.

The vital matter of safety is evident in other of the winners’ images. There is a fearsome underwater encounter with a six metre long Anaconda in Brazilian waters, only a few tens of centimetres away from the photographer’s lense. These snakes like to suffocate and swallow large mammals. Another shot is of a Great Barracuda so close up it is like the terrifying film sequences in “Jaws”: all teeth and menace. These fish live around Papua New Guinea where “they are the top-of-the-range opportunistic predators with huge, powerful jaws that enable them to eat a variety of prey. But unprovoked attacks on humans are extremely rare”. (So: might photography, and using strobe lights, be provocation? A nasty thought!)

Besides the creepy or scary photographs, the exhibition shows both the sublime and the ridiculous. For the former, there’s an Albatross gliding the waves in graceful harmony with its element; and for the latter a stand of male Flamingos arching their necks and ruffling their feathers to attract a female. Their seeming self-importance brings a smile to your face. There’s a Dolphin eyeing the photographer with that typical dolphin smile. There are two male King Penguins, having an argument about a female, who look too dressed up and gentlemanly for the occasion.

Although water often is the setting for winning images, there are plenty that are more sky and ground based. For sheer artistry is a picture of two Herons in the air, sparring over a piece of un-frozen water at the foot of a waterfall in Hungary. The temperature was -10ºC at the time. By chance and good judgement the photographer – a regular winner – has caught their beaks making a diagonal in one direction, their legs the opposite way. No old master of the past could have composed it better. Another vivid, avian action shot wins in a Young Photographers category. The picture shows a White Tailed Eagle with every tendril of its feathers in use, a fish snatched from the water in its talons, the droplets still dripping off. It was taken by Mart Smit, a Dutch lad visiting Norway , at one three-thousand-two-hundredth of a second: blink and you’ve missed it.

Down at ground level there is a view of a valley in Norway’s Oppland, rich in autumn colour, with two huts in sight that are dwarfed by the great landscape. But even smaller, in fact tiny by comparison, and motionless on a moss and lichen covered twig in the cloud forests of the Andes is a portrait of a Katydid. That is an invertebrate, perhaps grasshopper sized, known as a ‘moss mimic’. So sympathetically has the Katydid evolved that its likeness to the twig on which it rests and feeds is quite perfect. Without the photographer’s explanation you could fail to see the creature. Here is as wonderful an example as you could ever find of adaptation to the environment, in this species to avoid detection by predators.

By contrast, what of Homo sapiens? We do not adapt to our environment but mould it to our own will and, in doing so, destroy so much else that lives – or used to. Perhaps the Museum – it is of Natural History – should make more of this in what is shown. As a world-class museum it is the repository of centuries and millions of collected specimens. Its exhibition of wildlife photographs demonstrates the still vast variety of life on Earth. Maybe the Museum should use this popular public exhibition to drive home even harder the message of how precious is every single species that makes up the myriad biodiversity of the world we live in. It is a world that needs our care, not our exploitation.

If you want to look at our species alone, there is a widely praised concurrent exhibition of portrait photographs until 18 February 2007 at the National Portrait Gallery.

What a privilege to review the Natural History Museum’s Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition: it is so very, very excellent. I feel humbled by the talents of the photographers it attracts and by the natural beauty of the plant and animal life it portrays. Coming away from the exhibition, my wife, Elisabeth and I emerged to see skaters gliding, more or less gracefully, on the Museum’s just opened ice rink. Beside the rink were the tall London Plane trees, shown off by fairy lights wound along their branches. The Museum’s façade was all floodlit. In the early evening of a calm autumn London, there was a sense of hope for our species and for those many more with whom we share the planet.

Tyrrell Marris

November2006

Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom by Sean B. Carroll, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London 2005 ISBN-13 978 0 297 85094 6 ISBN-10 0297 85094 6. PP. i-xiv, 1-350.

Darwin revolutionized the world with his concept that the multiplicity of fossil remains and the diversity of species were the products of natural selection over time. The rediscovery, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, of Gregor Mendel’s work by cross-breeding peas of different colours, led, eventually to the development of genetics, while Watson and Crick’s work in the early 1950’s worked out the mechanisms of the DNA double helix.

However the precise mechanisms of how these different components worked at the level of the individual, the species and higher remained, apart from certain key insights, a mystery, until the last twenty years. During this period, increasingly swift and accurate methods of analyzing the genomes of living species have both highlighted and offered solutions to some of the deepest and most intractable of the outstanding problems in evolution. Although Darwin fully understood the importance of both embryology and evolution, efforts in the century after Darwin’s death focused on evolution, to the almost complete disregard of embryology. Moreover palaeontologists, focused on vast time-scales, dealing with the development of higher taxa, scarcely spoke to systematists concerned largely with the minutiae of small changes in closely related taxa, and population geneticists, studying gene flows in different populations.

This logjam was broken by genetic studies of the fruit fly, greatly aided by enormous advances in analytical techniques. These revealed that fruit fly genes governing major aspects of the insect’s body organization had identical counterparts for the same or analogous expression throughout the animal kingdom, including in man. Thus the comparison of such genes between widely different species developed, linking for the first time embryology and evolutionary biology. This came to be known as evolutionary developmental biology – Evo Devo.

Even more extraordinary was the discovery that a gene ‘tool box’ responsible for an eye in a mammal, when artificially transferred to, say a squid, programmes for the development of an eye in the squid: not in the form of a mammalian eye, but in the form of a squid eye!

Moreover genome analyses have shown that not only do we share almost 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and a significant proportion even with mice, but that relatively small percentages of this DNA appear to code for genes. Now, thanks to this work, we realize that the development of form depends crucially on the turning on and off of genes at different times of development, and this is achieved through the activity of what used to be known as junk DNA, or the ‘dark matter’ of the genome, now perceived to be regulatory DNA.

By identifying the role of similar, if not identical so called Hox genes, being clusters of gene specifying eyes, limbs etc., it rapidly proved possible to identify the sources of previously anomalous organs or appendages in widely different animals, from modern mammals, to the extraordinary diversity of life exhibited in the Cambrian explosion starting some 543 million years ago. The latter was possible by examining the DNA structures of currently extant organisms which have survived, minimally modified, from that era. Certain crucially important findings emerged from this study.

Perhaps the first was the theme of modular design: for example the backbones (vertebrae) of some vertebrates from the most primitive on the evolutionary scale to the most modern, and vertebrate limbs. Similarly, as this book illustrates particularly well, the apparently chaotic and complex patterns on butterfly wings.

Arising from this came confirmation, first posited by Williston in 1914, that “the parts in an organism tend toward reduction in number, with the fewer parts greatly specialized in function.” This has now been confirmed by recent genetic discoveries. Ecological pressures are crucial for determining which species survives and which becomes extinct.

From these extraordinary discoveries, it is clear that many of the Hox genes were established in the so far undiscovered forebears of the organisms which featured in the Cambrian biodiversity. They have survived over 500 million years.

Towards the end of the book, the author considers in some detail the way in which human brains developed, becoming significantly larger in relation to body-weight in two bursts in the early and late Pleistocene. These insights throw into sharp and detailed focus what is the essence of being human.

This is a book which for anyone with an interest in evolutionary theory is required reading – and which they will not be able to put down.

FNHM Newsletter – March 2007

Views expressed in this Newsletter should not be taken to reflect those of the Trustees or the Directorate of the Natural History Museum.

FORTHCOMING EVENTS

Tuesday, 22 May 2007 - 11.00 a.m. AGM to be held in NHM, London . Please note change of date. Our speaker will be Dr Michael Dixon, Director of NHM, who will give an update on Darwin Centre Phase 2.

Till 29 April 2007. Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition.

25 May 2007 - 6 April 2008. Ice Station Antarctica. Family exhibition in partnership with the British Antarctic Survey.

TRING RENAMED

The Walter Rothschild Museum at Tring has been renamed The Natural History Museum at Tring, as part of the NHM’s rebranding exercise.

MARINE NEMATODE BIODIVERSITY

About 15 Friends braved high winds on Thursday afternoon 18 January 2007 to attend a talk at NHM given by Professor P John D Lambshead on Marine Nematode Biodiversity. (Amongst those prevented from attending by the stormy weather was our Vice President, Prof. Eric Moonman, who sent his apologies from Peterborough Station where he was stranded.)

Prof Lambshead, a Cornishman, had studied industrial biotechnology at Brunel University before joining the NHM in the mid-70’s to study marine nematodes. As a side-line, he has played a major role in the development, from the earliest years, of computer games. These often involved slaying demons, and problems in the study of nematode diversity could be frequently seen in the same light.

Nematodes are small, multi-celled organisms that share with the arthropods possession of an exoskeleton. They are enormously speciose and prolific, and occur in sediments at all ocean depths from coastal to abyssal (2,000-5,000 m) and hadal (in excess of 5,000 m), as well as in terrestrial habitats, including parasitism of animals and plants. Bearing in mind that 66% of the earth’s surface is sea, you have some idea of the potential range and extent of environments inhabited by marine nematodes. In the deepest areas of the ocean there is no primary production, and organisms depend for sustenance on the flux of microorganisms and other debris floating down from above. Photosynthesis is limited to the photic zone in the first 200 m – but generally in fact the first feet.

Although in the past use of manned craft for collecting samples has been popular, problems of safety and expense coupled with technological developments have more recently meant the use of remote control vehicles.

On the abyssal plain, nematodes account for some 85-96% of the total metazoa. There are enormous differences in their abundance at different levels in the sea. The highest recorded is 108 (one hundred million) specimens per square metre in the mud of the Irish sea . One hundred thousand to one million per square metre is a more common figure.

The patterns of species richness and ecological diversity of marine nematodes are studied against a background where the vast majority of species is unknown (i.e. not scientifically described). Such taxonomic work as has been done is primarily in N. Europe. On Clyde Beach, 65% of the species have been described, falling to 38% (Irish Sea), 4% (Norway) and elsewhere 1%.

In total, some 4,000 species have been described, of which 3,000 are from the beaches of N.W. Europe. After three years spent describing new species, Prof Lambshead gave up the unequal task of labeling this diversity, and decided to focus on statistical methods for studying its nature. Statistics are like miniskirts, a good idea but still concealing interesting things. They are nevertheless able to offer important insights into the real world from inadequate data.

The traditional species curve, known for 200 years, measures species accumulation against numbers of specimens collected, and, depending on species richness, sooner or later levels out at the total number of species. Estimates of nematode species numbers from such curves ranged from 10 million to 100 million species, but in more recent statistical studies, the worldwide figure surged to 100 million. The true figure is unknown.

However, when looked at in detail, certain areas are far more species-rich than others, to a large extent depending on the richness of food sources. Confusion abounded because different statistical techniques yielded dramatically different results, and it became apparent with further sampling that local species richness in marine nematodes varied in unexpected ways, for example low diversity could occur in Arctic waters, but some of the highest diversity occurred in temperate waters. It seems that both a good flux of nutrients and a degree of environmental disturbance are necessary for the development of high diversity.

Where there is low nutrient flux, the number of species is low, but an increase in the former will only increase the latter to a certain level. However, with a modest increase in the level of disturbance, combined with an increase in productivity, the maximum number of species may be expected, according to the theory of Huston.

Interestingly, the whole of the Central Pacific abyssal area appears to contain no more than 360 estimated species, while the English Channel boasts 2,103, and New Caledonia 1,734. Yet the Mersey Estuary only has 384. What accounts for these discrepancies? The deep sea has a high alpha (point sample) diversity due to the interplay of high nutrient levels with patch dynamics, but with only limited disturbance. However, on a regional scale, it is found that the same species occur over large areas. Coastal habitats on the other hand have low local alpha diversity because physical disturbance reduces the influence of patch dynamics. They have high beta and gamma diversities because new suites of species are found in a series of discrete but close-packed habitats that develop in response to the greater structural diversity of coastal systems.

Studies of nematodes in the early days relied primarily on the use of microscopes. This has in recent years been supplemented by using molecular bar-coding techniques on large samples from selected spots round the world.

One of Prof Lambshead’s students used these data to prepare a phylogenetic classification of the Nematoda, essentially an evolutionary taxonomy. This depended on the use of genetic sequencing techniques on a large sample of taxa from across the diversity of the group. The results were then subjected to cladistic analysis, based on principles of parsimony, and are due to be published this year.

The use of genetic clocks also has a role in the study of the evolution of the nematodes, some genomes changing more quickly than that of C. elegans, the most intensely studied nematode, which itself shows changes four times as fast as Drosophila.

Many evolutionary changes, or lack thereof, can be related to tectonic events. In the late Permian, some 255 million years ago, there was one landmass and one ocean. Globally, coastal faunas remained similar to each other. However, in the change through plate tectonic events to the current more complex geography, species which are believed to have separated out 100 million years ago have continued to evolve relatively quickly and form distinct regional faunas.

We have seen earlier that cold water, which sinks in an oxygenated state, is favourable for the survival of marine nematodes. However, the contrary is true when hotter conditions prevail, as is currently happening in the Black Sea.

Further anomalies have been observed by comparison between fauna from China , which gives evidence of the type of species radiation one would expect, and deep sea results, in the Pacific, producing a relatively recent species radiation pattern which does not fit the expected model. What is the answer to these anomalies? Either the molecular clock is incorrect, or, less likely, there has been a shift of species from a deep sea to a shallow water environment. Such cases where molecular results clash with biologic observations may be classed as demonic intrusion!

In the course of some detailed questioning, Dr Holloway enquired whether the existence of oceanic ridges and deep sea volcanoes played a role in the observed discrepancies in nematode diversity. e.g. generating numerous localised disturbance systems within the Pacific. Prof Lambshead replied that at present he did not know, but planned to look at nematode populations around the Hawaiian islands , the origins of which are entirely volcanic. This may provide answers to this question.

The meeting closed at about 5.00 p.m. Henry Barlow, on behalf of The Friends thanked Prof Lambshead most warmly for a fascinating talk, and indicated that as a gesture of gratitude, a donation would be made to enable one of Prof Lambshead’s students to undertake further nematode genetic sequencing work.

The Natural History Museum Annual Report & Accounts 2005-2006. HMSO 6 November 2006.

The latest statutory accounts of NHM are significantly more informative than in previous years. They carry in addition to the basic accounts, and notes thereon, some 18 pages of introductory information. Much of this is comparable to the Directors’ Report and details of the roles of certain of the board committees, which one would expect to find in the report and accounts of a quoted company.

The consolidated income and expenditure for the year amounts to an operating deficit of £1.980 million, to which is added an adjustment for capital projects of £646,000, to give a total deficit of £2.626 million. The explanation of the £646,000 item is unclear.

The Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities for the year ended 31 March 2006 is, as always, complicated, chiefly by the need to distinguish between four types of funds:

1. Unrestricted funds

(a) Designated

(b) General

2. Restricted funds

3. Permanent Endowment funds

On the income side, there have been significant increases in Grant in Aid, National Lottery and Trading activities. An exceptional item is the profit on the sale of part of the Wandsworth store site. The precise manner in which this profit is arrived at is not clear from Note 7 to which this item is referred. One would have expected Note 7 to include as a sub-item, book value of the part of the site sold, less accumulated depreciation, to give a net book value, deducted from sales proceeds to produce the £5.617 million profit in the Consolidated statement.

Similarly, under resources expended, one would have expected a clear reconciliation of the figures to show how loss on disposal of fixed assets of £3.772 million was achieved. This of course refers to the demolition of the old Entomology Building, and, according to Note 7, combines net book value with demolition costs.

Note 6 gives a breakdown of total resources expended, of £74.771 million, in a different form from that on the main Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities. It would be interesting to know what the £520,000 of ‘Governance Costs’ consists of.

The continuation of this statement on p.22 contains on line two two errors as a result of figures being put into the wrong columns. This mistake could only have occurred if, on the final proof, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Director, Dr Dixon, designated (see p.15) as Accounting Officer for the Museum and the Audit Committee, had failed to cast the figures. They could reasonably have asked their minions to do this, yet it is they who must bear the responsibility for getting it wrong.

With such a glaring error, one begins to look with more care at some of the other figures. Gains on investment assets, for instance, are shown on the face of the accounts as £194,000, yet Note 8 shows that for the Group, between 2005 and 2006, the increase was £196,000. Nor is one assured by the less than satisfactory and hence somewhat confusing presentation of Note 16.

None of the figures in the audited accounts, apart from those for Grant in Aid and Heritage Lottery Funding, tie in with the Income and Expenditure Account shown in the Museum’s Annual review. This leads one to wonder if we are working with the same sets of figures.

The consolidated balance sheet shows an encouraging increase in net current assets. However the funding side is less clear. In particular it would be helpful to see in the notes a full accounting for the sources of funding, received and promised, against the expenditure to date and contingent liabilities for the Darwin Centre Phase 2. After the balance sheet date, there was a commitment to pay £42 million for the construction of DC2, out of a total cost which has now risen to £73 million. Such treatment would allay ongoing concerns that there is a shortfall in overall funding for this project.

Appendix 1 on page 12 of the report indicates that NHM in the year under review comfortably exceeded its core targets set by DCMS for the period. That at least, is indeed good news in an otherwise less than satisfactory presentation.

The Gilded Canopy: Botanical Ceiling Panels of the Natural History Museum by Sandra Knapp and Bob Press. Pp. 1-168, 17.5 x 21.8 cm, hard cover with d/w. ISBN: 0 565 09198 0 ISBN13: 978 0 565 09198 9. £15.

How many of us, visiting NHM, have looked up at the vaulted roof of the main hall with wonder and amazement? The multiple panels are filled with every variety of plant forms in a seemingly spectacular jumble. Having marvelled at the diversity, we lower our heads and scurry on our way to whatever business or exhibition draws us. As often as not, after the initial amazement, we almost forget what is above our heads as we pass through the central hall.

This timely book explains the background to this extraordinary display of decoration, sets it in the context of Britain as major colonial power at the time the NHM was built, and attempts to work out the significance of the plants illustrated and the reasons for their arrangement. It also provides a guide to all the ceiling panels, with a large postage stamp sized illustration and details of the common name, where there is one, current scientific name, family and the name as it appears on the panel.

The names used in the nineteenth century have not infrequently changed since then, and the last section of the book helpfully gives a brief summary of of the rules of botanical nomenclature. Concisely written over four pages, it will be of considerable help to budding botanists and amateur gardeners far away from the Central Hall of NHM.

The NHM was built at a time when Britain’s nineteenth century colonial empire was at its apogee. This empire was ultimately dependent on the various tropical crops produced in places such as India. It was therefore only natural that such tropical plants should be illustrated. Tea, coffee, the castor oil plant and sugarcane were thus illustrated, and the authors in many cases give potted histories of how the plants depicted fitted into the pattern of colonial trade at the time. It is interesting to note that Africa contributes many fewer species than India and the Far East.

While the Central Hall concentrated on plants from all over the world, it was agreed that the North Hall (now the cafe) should be devoted to plants of the British Isles. The book draws the distinction between archaeophytes (ancient introductions before about 1500 A.D.) and neophytes, (recent introductions since that date.) One of the most successful neophytes has been rosebay willowherb, formerly confined to rocky uplands. As woodland was cleared it found an opportunity to colonize, and this grew to dramatic proportions as it colonised sites which had been bombed during the Blitz in the Second World War.

Unfortunately, as the book points out, we have very few clues as to who planned and painted these panels. The authors however indulge in some gentle speculation as to why certain plants appeared in certain places in the displays.

The maintenance of such paintings is also a major problem, more particularly as they are so high above the ground. Amazingly details of restoration work undertaken as recently as 1975 have been lost. However the panels are now regularly photographed close up, with the help of a spider-hoist, so that any deterioration can be monitored closely.

The book is attractively produced, profusely illustrated and for £15 good value. Buy it at the NHM bookshop, and if you cannot find a place to lie on your back and view the ceiling at leisure in the middle of the Central Hall, risk a crick in your neck as you gaze upwards at the botanical panels.

Errata. At the fourth line from the bottom of p. 1 of the December 2006 Newsletter, £9,035.2 million should of course have read £9.035 million. Apologies.

DARWIN CENTRE PHASE 2

Update on the Ongoing Muddle

DC2 is under construction (a contract for £43 million has been given, out of the total of £73 million, which is now estimated to be the total cost.)

Endless deliberations continue over what should be housed in the completed building, and what for want of space will now have to be excluded. Should this be a major component of either the Entomology or the Botany collections?

As we have said before, no amount of deliberation can, or should now obfuscate the fact that the Trustees in 2004 made a major error when they agreed to the construction of a new building with only 3.4 km of standard storage space, as against 4.6 km which had been estimated as necessary in 2001.

The Keeper of Entomology has remarked that the new building will bring together an Entomology Department currently scattered between no less than seven sites. It should be pointed out that in the old building, the Department was functioning as an integrated whole. Anything less than this in DC2 could be seen as a serious step backwards, given the original objectives of the project.

FNHM Newsletter – June 2007

Views expressed in this Newsletter should not be taken to reflect those of the Trustees or the Directorate of the Natural History Museum.

FORTHCOMING EVENTS

The forthcoming autumn meeting will be held on Tuesday 16 October at the usual time, when Friends will be given a guided introduction to the botanical panels on the roof of the main hall, by Bob Press, co-author with Sandra Knapp of a book on the same subject, ‘The Gilded Canopy’, reviewed in a recent number of The Friends’ Newsletter.

Tuesday 15 or Thursday 17 January 2008 Meeting: details to be confirmed.

A DEAFENING SILENCE

The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee has recently published its report, ‘Caring for our collections’ (Sixth Report of Session 2006-7.)

This 97 page report deals in some considerable detail with many of the problems which face the Museum sector in U.K. , including a significant section at the end dealing with the rather specialized problems of archives.

It is remarkable therefore that apart from appearing fairly high in the national museum league tables given in the report, NHM and other natural history museums get scarcely a mention. Their problems to be sure are very different from those of museums and galleries specializing in historic artifacts, often of the greatest artistic importance. Yet there is absolutely no doubt that natural history museums face very significant problems, amongst them being the need to reconcile the public requirement for attractive and educational displays, with the scientific requirements of maintaining, conserving and working on fragile specimens of outstanding historic and scientific importance: both locally in the case of regional museums, and internationally in the case of NHM.

The report mentions that the museum sector in UK today is responsible for 300 million specimens. Of these, no less than 70 million are natural history specimens housed in the NHM. Other natural history specimens around the country must bring the total to close to 100 million or one third of the total number of artifacts/specimens in our collections.

It is a great pity that the problems of natural history collections have been completely overlooked, despite representations (not disclosed in the Report) which were submitted to the Committee. Environmental concerns have never been given more publicity than at present, and our natural history museums, with irreplaceable historic collections have unique material available to help us address these problems.

It would have been desirable to devote a separate section to these particular issues, as has been done for archives. As it is, there is a deafening silence, and an opportunity missed.

ARTICLE ON NHM IN NATURE

Vol. 447 of Nature dated 17 May contained a report entitled ‘Concerns over DC2’ listing some of the issues which have been raised in the columns of this Newsletter over the years. The issue of 21 June carried a letter from Richard Lane , Director of Science, NHM, attempting to rebut the criticisms.

TALK BY DR M DIXON, DIRECTOR OF NHM

Immediately after The Friends’ AGM, at 12.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 May 2007, Dr Michael Dixon addressed those present on progress over the Darwin Centre, Phase 2, which has been the source of so much controversy recently. He was accompanied by Dr Malcolm Scoble, Keeper of Entomology and Dr Mike Fitton, head coordinator of scientific activities.

Dr Dixon reported that the structure is now eight stories high, with topping out estimated for 1 June 2007. This is formal recognition that the concrete structure is complete. Full construction is estimated to be complete in July 2008, a year from now, allowing the science and public offer fit-out to commence in August 2008. The formal opening is scheduled for the autumn of 2009.

There are two key decisions to be made:

1. How much space should be allowed for the growth of the collections?

2. Where are the overflow collections to be housed?

In considering the answers to these queries, there are three objectives:

1. To provide environmentally controlled storage of the collections of some 28 million specimens. The NHM has an obligation to maintain these in the best possible condition. At present only 40% are maintained in ideal conditions. Once DC2 is complete, this will rise to 70%.

2. To undertake world class science with world class facilities.

3. To engage the public more with the collections and science generally.

Dr Dixon also stressed that in his view, and that of the NHM, taxonomic work will in future be undertaken in a different manner compared to the past. In future he envisages teams of taxonomists working within and between institutions.

On the public awareness front, he acknowledged that perception of the highly important scientific work which the NHM undertakes is limited. For this reason, and to justify the expenditure of public funds on the collections, it is essential that their relevance in the 21st century be emphasized. This, of course, involves working closely with the media. He cited for example the recent discovery in Serbia of a mineral new to science, which had earned the NHM welcome publicity. Ultimately such publicity is crucial, because upon it depends the continuance at meaningful levels of the government grant-in-aid, by far the largest source of revenue for NHM.

Bearing this in mind, Dr Dixon explained what the public offer in DC2 would include:

1. Atrium space

2. The Attenborough Studio

3. An ‘Explore tour’: a tour of 3-1/2 floors to bring the public closer to the collections.

4. Some 1,800 square metres of new exhibition space, out of a total of 3,200 square metres of exhibition space throughout the museum.

5. An activities programme.

6. A UK biodiversity resource centre.

7. link to and view of the Wildlife Garden .

The scientific offer will include:

1. Storage for the most vulnerable collections.

2. New lab and other facilities.

3. A cultural change.

4. scientific input to the public offer.

5. A UK biodiversity resource centre to link with amateurs.

6. Shared common space.

The constraints on these deliverables include:

1. Physical limitations over planning consent for a grade one listed building.

2. Affordability.

3. The need for science to be done differently in future.

4. New techniques and technology (e.g. DNA analysis) requires specialized laboratory space and facilities.

5. Vulnerability of the collections at present to pests and fire, with the Department of Botany being particularly exposed.

The DC2 project will have the following impacts on the NHM Master Plan:

1. It is the biggest NHM project undertaken since the construction of the Waterhouse Building.

2. The decant of the old building has involved the construction of a mezzanine floor in the old Origin of Species gallery, to accommodate part of the collections.

3. The new DC2 building requires a complete rethink of circulation patterns within the NHM.

4. The cost of DC2 has meant that the major refurbishment of other galleries has had to be put on hold, since the cost exceeds NHM’s turnover.

On the storage facility at Wandsworth, Dr Dixon remarked that although certain environmental controls and fire precautions had been installed, it was a long way from South Kensington. Either significant further long term investment was needed, or it should be disposed of in favour of a more suitably situated site (which might possibly be shared as a store/repository with the Science Museum .) Dr Dixon added that the cost of restoring the Origin of Species gallery would be considerable, more particularly as there were no environmental controls, and fire protection needed enhancement.

The presentation concluded with the showing of a DVD.

There followed a question and answer session.

Question. When you previously addressed the Friends in October 2004 you assured us that DC2 would not only house all the existing insect collections but would provide an additional 10% expansion space. It has since become obvious that DC2 just cannot fulfil those ambitions. What has gone wrong? And are the sponsors aware that rather than contributing to a unifying vision for life sciences they will be financing the fragmentation of the Entomology Department?

Answer. It was realized at an early stage that due to financial restrains and planning consent issues, not all the collections would fit into DC2. The sponsors were aware that some collections will not fit back into DC2. However Dr Dixon indicated that Entomology would not be fragmented, thus reiterating what he had told The Friends when he first talked to them in October 2004. He remarked that Zoology successfully worked on three sites. He also mentioned the option of the temporary retention of Origins, with the exit strategy of the basement zoology store, moving what is in it now out to Wandsworth.

Question. After your talk in 2004, a query was raised as to the future of the Entomological (including sectional) libraries. Where would these be housed, more particularly if the collection was to be divided between Wandsworth and South Kensington ? At that stage no clear answer was given. Are you now able to give us a clearer answer?

Answer. Plans are afoot for a biodiversity heritage library online, in collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution and Harvard in USA to scan all biodiversity literature and make it available on the web, thus facilitating public access. US$40 million is available for this. Feasibility studies are being undertaken, to determine the rate of scanning, and consider the issue of mirror sites. This will change the way people work. Original materials will remain available.

Dr Scoble added that the entomological collections will be scanned first, and he estimated that a single centralized library would be available within five years.

Dr Dixon further explained that enough money was available from the sponsors for the first five years. The centralization of library facilities, he estimated would cost at least £15 million. Details of this initiative are available on a number of websites. He would forward by email details to anyone who was interested. To have such a facility available on the internet will of course reduce the number of scientists visiting NHM. Steps will be taken to measure this website usage.

Question. What steps are being taken to guard against flooding?

Answer. The NHM has in hand a process of risk management. At present the risk is small, but this may change with climate change.

Question. There are two aspects to the world-class, state-of-the-art facilities planned for curators, researchers and scientific visitors in the new building: what proportion of the work-stations would have good daylight illumination (virtually 100% in the old building); whether working practice ergonomics (time and motion factors) for a combination of various functions in collections-based research would be optimized as efficiently as was enjoyed in the old building? There many resources, including key literature, were close at hand, after allowing for the degree of segregation necessary for the improvement of the environmental conditions for the collections in DC2.

Dr Dixon referred these questions to Dr Mike Fitton, who replied to the first question that, in his opinion, daylight was not essential for taxonomic work, though of course it is nice to be able to look out of a window. He maintained that standardized lighting (type unspecified) is best, despite a point being made that the colour balance achieved by natural light is of key importance. It is probably fair to deduce from this answer that the work-stations in DC2 will be mainly artificially illuminated. If the Origins exit strategy is executed, some of the associated curatorial and taxonomic work will have to be undertaken in the basement of the Waterhouse building, also artificially lit.

In answer to the second question, they had conducted an exercise with a sample of staff to assess how they worked over a period of time, and extrapolated this to the dispersion of facilities in the new building, finding that time factors did not differ significantly for the type of work these staff were engaged in.

In conclusion, Prof Moonman proposed a warm vote of thanks to Dr Dixon, Dr Scoble and Dr Fitton for sparing the time to brief The Friends in this manner.

Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of The Friends of the Natural History Museum, held at 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday 22 May 2007 in the De Beer Room at The Natural History Museum, S. Kensington.

Present : Prof Eric Moonman CBE Chair

18 members

7 apologies were received

9 proxies were received

1. Minutes of the 2006 AGM, held on 17 May 2006 at Down House were approved on the proposal of Dr Sattler, seconded by Mr Taylor.

2. Matters arising. Mr Barlow reported that welcome assistance with the Friends’ Newsletter had been received, and urged Friends to continue to send in reviews and articles, which are always welcome.

3. Chairman’s report. Dr Moonman reported that a very successful coffee morning had been held at the Museum, as suggested at an earlier AGM. Those present had particularly appreciated Sue Perk’s account of the challenges and problems in staging an exhibition at NHM. It was hoped to arrange a further meeting before long. The Friends had held the following meetings in the last year:

(a) a talk by Dr A Polascek on the activities of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

(b) A talk by Dr T J Lambshead on the taxonomy of deep sea organisms.

Suggestions made for future meetings included possibly inviting someone from the BBC Natural History Unit, and also a representative of the Society for the Study of Natural History, based in the NHM. The possibility of a talk from a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was also mentioned.

4. Election of Committee Members. It was reported that Lord Oxburgh had tendered his resignation w.e.f. the end of this meeting. It was agreed unanimously to invite Prof Eric Moonman to take on this position. It was further agreed that Ms Sue Perks be invited to fill the vacancy on the Committee which thus arose. Members of the Committee, viz. Prof Eric Moonman, Mr Henry Barlow, Miss Adele Carritt, Mrs P Holloway, Miss Pam Gilbert and Ms Sue Perks were re-elected/elected unanimously.

5. The accounts for the year ended 31 March 2007 were presented, and Mr Barlow explained the salient features. In response to an enquiry from Mr Marris, it was explained that charges for refreshments were paid for by the Friends themselves. The accounts were approved on the proposal of Mrs Hogarth-Scott, seconded by Miss Gilbert.

6. Any other business. Ms Sue Perks gave an account of the forthcoming exhibition ‘Systema Metropolis’ in which she has been involved as designer. The exhibition is timely, as it commemorates the 300th anniversary of the birth of Linnaeus (on 23 May.)

7. Conclusion. Prof Moonman closed the meeting, reminding Friends that it was to be followed immediately by a presentation by Dr M Dixon, Director, on the progress of Darwin Centre Phase 2.

The meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the Chair.

FNHM Newsletter – September 2007

Views expressed in this Newsletter should not be taken to reflect those of the Trustees or the Directorate of the Natural History Museum.

FORTHCOMING EVENTS

26 October 2007. Opening to the public of the annual Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year Exhibition.

Tuesday 15 January 2008. Talk by Prof Richard Lane on ‘The Repatriation of Human Remains’ collected in the nineteenth century and earlier to descendants.

Wed. 12 March 2008. Talk by Dr Graham Higley, Librarian, NHM, subjects to include digitization of all NHM library material for online access.

Ice Station Antarctica:

At the Natural History Museum until April 2008

The Museum has mounted this extraordinary exhibition in partnership with the British Antarctic Survey. It is designed to interest children from seven to eleven years old and it certainly does. A brief interview with Jack, within that age range, revealed that he definitely wants to go to Antarctica. His academic interests are physics and maths; also he is pleased with his globe which locates the great southern continent. Patrick, asked if he had enjoyed the show, gave a prompt ‘yes’. So the Museum is somewhat wrong because Patrick is aged only five. It was obvious that, amongst the crowd of children and grown-ups at the pre-view, this exhibition has a wide appeal. The variety and ingenuity of the exhibits successfully interest the young and teenagers and adults.

How is this interest stimulated? Partly because the designers of the show have used shock tactics; also they have created a novel way to route the visitor through a forty-minute exposure to Antarctic conditions. This novelty takes the form of a challenge: “are you fit to join the Antarctic survey team?” Interactive displays test your knowledge, skills and determination as you go from site to site in the specially built exhibition area. The challenge is a gimmick, of course, but both fun and instructive.

Your reviewer must not give too much away. However it can be revealed that one site after another shows just how many and hugely different qualities are needed in the men and women who staff the ice station. In the Antarctic summer more than fifty people are there to set up experiments, stock up with food and fuel, deal with waste, maintain the life-support services, equip and check over the tents, tractors, sledges and so on. You find unexpected glimpses of nostalgia. The sledges are little different from the tried and tested ones used by Amundsen on man’s first journey to the south-pole – though now they are pulled by powered snowmobiles using aviation fuel, because it doesn’t freeze easily. Amundsen used dogs which also don’t freeze – and they can be eaten.

At one site you get a view into a four-sided pyramid shaped tent, for use when a survey party leaves the base station. Inside there is a meal set up and other stuff. So much is familiar, presumably because the gear has withstood the test of time: a Tilley lamp for light; a Primus stove for cooking; pans that fit neatly within each other; cotton fabric; nutritious dried foods (there’s plenty of snow to melt); the old staples of Kraft cheese and Cadbury’s Dairy Milk chocolate plus a relative new comer, Nescafé. You need to eat a lot when out and about in Antarctica because Homo sapiens uses so much food just to maintain body temperature. Out there, winter darkness and vicious wind-chill make the cold feel like minus 50ºC.

During the winter months the experiments must continue. The large summer staff has reduced to only about twenty, half and half scientists and support crew. The vivid colours of their protective clothing – still using duck-down filling – are invisible in the fifteen week perpetual darkness so modern receive / transmit radios are crucial to survival. Invaluable also are satellite navigators, accurate to just one metre, so that experimental sites (or casualties) can be pin-pointed. As the exhibition reveals, life is at the extreme of survival in such conditions. The qualities needed to join the survey team are deliberate care, focussed attention to the job in hand, immaculate pre-planning, self-reliance when alone but social skills when in company. Gung-ho adventurousness is not needed. It was a joy to meet some of the British Antarctic Survey team. A lad was holding a youthful audience with his demonstration of how to cook an Antarctic curry. A lass was there to explain what tent life is like without running water or a separate w.c. (You get to know your tent companion’s habits very well.) Both looked so young though no-one ever said so outright, probably an informal upper age limit exists for those selected to endure an Antarctic winter. There must be health checks too; Shackleton, another great explorer of the southernmost continent, had a heart defect that could have disqualified him.

At our pre-view Dr Dixon, the Museum’s director, introduced the exhibition. His pride in the Museum’s work is clear and this special show deserves it. He was followed by Dr. Robert Culshaw, deputy director of the British Antarctic Survey. Both speakers engendered confidence that the British contribution to the science of Antarctica is in safe hands.

And that is right. Statistics about Antarctica reveal the size and importance of the challenge to the world’s scientists. Eighteen countries have full-time research stations there including Britain’s. The area is fifty-eight times the size of the UK. It holds almost three quarters of the world’s fresh water as ice, miles deep. But its temperature has increased by 3ºC in fifty years. That is a threat not just to the unusual species living there but to all mankind – to all species. Who knows what shifts of climate, what floods, what other changes to earth and oceans might come if warming continues at that rate, or more?

Those questions justify the £40 million to £50 million cost of our Antarctica ice station, funded by the taxpayer through the NERC. Already engineer and architect Peter Ayres and Faber Maunsell have designed the next one. Named Halley VI after that astronomer and enquirer into natural phenomena, their proposal looks like some vast space station. Halley V and VI are where our nation’s scientists contribute to the urgent need to find the answers, as Halley did in his day. The Museum’s exhibition alerts us to this vital enquiry. That is both us adults and also the new generation for whom this challenging exhibition is designed and to whom what presently unknown challenges might appear – comet-like impinging on our world.

Tyrrell Marris

www.nhm.ac.uk

Every year or so, we endeavour to take a reasonably close look at the NHM’s website, chiefly because so much changes, as the site expands from year to year.

Indeed the site has now become so large that it is all too easy to miss out on key sections. The whole site has of curse expanded and grown, a bit like topsy over the last few years, as internet access, and techniques, have developed far more quickly than anyone would have believed possible a decade ago.

The homepage is crucial for any website, and the predominant first impression is that this is a fun site devoted to a very significant extent to interested members of the public with no particular professional expertise. All of this is clearly aligned to the NHM’s mission to achieve certain numbers of visitors from specific groups (for example schoolchildren) each year. Thus on the homepage we find details of current and forthcoming exhibitions and museum promotional events, times of opening etc.

The current and forthcoming exhibitions are marked by chatty informative articles, for instance ‘Baby Dinosaur herd discovered in China ’ about a group of fossilized baby dinosaurs found there.

However once one attempts to go beyond these immediate concerns, the website design is such that it is not always easy to access the relevant section. For instance a banner headline at the top offers Research and curation, Business centre, About us, and, mercifully for the less web-savvy, a search box. This latter appears to work well, and can shortcut an exercise in trial and error to discover under which sub-heading the object of the search occurs.

However it is followed, confusingly, just below the masthead by a further eight options. To confound matters even further there are no fewer than eleven further options on the bottom half of the page, some highlighted, some in minute print, with at least two (About us and Education) being repeats of the same options which appear at the top of the page.

So while it might make the homepage look less fun and perhaps even a little austere, there would seem to be, in the interests of access alone, a strong case for aligning the search box, and all the major sections of what is now an enormous website in one part of the page.

A welcome feature this year - or is it that my computer (or I?) have only just learned how to play them, is the appearance of short films, associated with some of the more detailed articles accessible once one moves from the homepage. They are lively and relevant, and likely to provide many hours of good infotainment!

The strength of such a fabulous institution as NHM lies in the combination of generally first class displays based on the 68 million specimens which are maintained behind the scenes. This corresponds to the seven eighths of the iceberg which is not visible. However it is crucially important, and if the NHM is fully to achieve its goal in the current age of information, it is essential that the website should provide access to the species represented in the collections. Indeed such access will become ever more crucial if Director Dr Michael Dixon’s welcoming words on the homepage are to be realized: “Explore our world-class collections, fantastic exhibitions and cutting-edge research online...”

How is the NHM shaping up in discharging this responsibility? Well, it is making progress, although at times this appears hesitant. One of the problems which clearly faces the designer of the overall website is the question of how to deal with the lighteningly swift and massive advances in internet technology: what may today be state of the art, may in two weeks’ time be old hat. It must therefore make sense to allow different approaches by different departments, and indeed experts within those departments. In one or two cases, by searching the name of an individual scientist, one may find useful illustrations of some, if not all of the species on which he/she is currently working, together, occasionally, even with online texts and illustrations of their recent publications. All too often however the result is a long list of references which cannot be accessed through the website. In other cases one is faced with massive card indices, photographed onto a template with a number of boxes, dealing with superfamily, family, genus, subgenus and species etc. together with the relevant literature reference, but no images.

It may yet be early days, but ideally one would like to see at the end of this massive exercise in the transfer of data from aged card indices to computer, a coloured image of the species to which the scientific name refers, together with images of the relevant microscope slides, showing genitalia and other microscopic structures, and perhaps eventually references to the repository where DNA details may be found, and, with suitable prior permissions accessed for further study.

Impossible? Far too time consuming? When such work was in its infancy 10-15 years ago, this was the reaction of many to the idea of computerizing the NHM’s massive card indices. The idea of scanning at that stage was little more than a pipe-dream. With such rapid advances in technology, the scanning of numerous images may well in years to come prove to be less of a problem than it now appears. Certainly the technology is now available to place an image on a website and focus on, and enlarge one part of it - for instance markings on the wing of a moth.

Even now, significant data bases exist which provide mages of many groups of organisms. They vary of course in quality and reliability, but in the absence of relevant material on the NHM website, might it not make sense to provide links into NHM vetted websites, carrying such images? This would have the added advantage of enabling NHM to prioritize its own image creation, concentrating on organisms with less popular public appeal. Moreover it would save an enormous amount of duplicated work.

So, excellent as the current website is, it could do with a bit of rearrangement, and considerably more attention being paid to the development of the scientific aspects.

The Origins of the BRITISH: A Genetic Detective Story by Stephen Oppenheimer. Constable & Robinson, 2006, Pp. i-xxi, 1-534. Col. pl. ISBN-13: 978-1-84529-158-7.

For those who enjoy a solid read on the subject of early human population studies, Oppenheimer’s earlier Eden in the East, and Out of Eden make fascinating reading, as he unravels the story of how the first humans emerged from Africa and spread round the world.

As in these earlier works, this book uses many of the same techniques - basically DNA analysis, combined with linguistics and the archaeological record to focus very specifically on how the population of Britain up to and including the invasions of the Vikings in the Dark Ages was composed.

Unlike Chris Stringer’s Homo Britannicus (see review Vol. 16 No. 3, Sept. 2006), Oppenheimer concentrates only on those who have recolonized Britain from the end of the last Ice Age, about 15,000 years ago. Earlier colonizers, as explained by Stringer, were annihilated or driven back to refugia in southern Europe by the onset of ice.

A traditional rendering of the history of the population of Britain (including all associated islands, such as Ireland ) assumes that a Celtic population, originally derived from Celtic origins in Iron Age Central Europe spread northwards, to be followed by the Romans, Angles, Saxons and Vikings in the Dark Ages between the end of the Roman occupation of Britain . These invaders pushed back the Celts to Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

Oppenheimer shows, by a detailed examination of classical sources, combined with linguistic and DNA evidence that this was incorrect. He traces this error to Herodotus, who with a sketchy knowledge of the geography of northern Europe, confused the actual source of the Danube in central Europe with the more likely origin of the Celtic invasions up the Atlantic seaboard from the Pyrennees. Hence the pervasive view until recently that all incursions to Britain came in waves across the Channel or from across the north sea.

Oppenheimer traces in some detail the evidence to show that at the time of the Roman invasion by Caesar in 55 B.C., an insular celtic culture and celtic languages were widespread in Britain. This pre-Roman celtic culture was derived not from Central Europe, as most people believed but from the Atlantic seaboard of Europe, and dated back to the Bronze Age or possibly the Neolithic.

The earlier part of the book produces the DNA evidence for these assertions. In general terms, human migration into Europe from the Middle East was on various occasions halted, or driven back to southern European refuges. From there, as the weather improved, human populations expanded back into central and northern Europe.

Recent advances, analysing in detail mitochondrial DNA, (mtDNA), inherited exclusively down the female line, have enabled us to discover ever more information about our distant ancestors. This is because mtDNA is subject to random mutation, and each mutation, generally neutral, i.e. of no functional or health relevance, is subsequently passed through all subsequent daughters. Although a degree of estimation is involved, a method was devised in 1996, which has since been generally accepted, which dates each branch of the gene tree. This enables experts, using samples of DNA from living individuals, to obtain a fair approximation of human migrations from their origin in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

The analogous male equivalent is the Y chromosome, the defining chromosome for maleness. Part of it does not recombine, and remains unchanged except for point mutations. So this nonrecombing Y-chromosome (NRY) has, slightly more recently, also been developed as a genetic tracker. It may, by virtue of its larger size, eventually prove more powerful in geographic resolution.

A combination of these two methods enables different European populations today to be analysed in some detail as to their genetic makeup, pointing clearly to the geographic origins of their constituent parts.

This analysis when applied to populations in the British Isles suggests that our earliest ancestors moved up along the Atlantic seaboard after the last glacial maximum (LGM) some 20,000 years ago. Between 15,000-13,000 years ago, this flow contributed perhaps a third of maternal ancestors to the British Isles. An additional, much less powerful flow came from refugia in eastern Europe, spreading northwards up the Danube to Scandinavia, then across the low plain, which was what is now the North Sea to eastern England .

Oppenheimer argues against a series of massive ethnic cleansing events as Angles and Saxons moved chiefly into the east of England later, after the Roman invasion. He prefers a theory of gradual assimilation of smaller groups, from northern Europe.

The last part of the book deals with the genetic evidence for the Viking invasions from Denmark and Norway in the eighth to tenth centuries. Here, unlike earlier invasions, the genetic evidence largely supports that of the by now much stronger historical record. Interestingly it seems to have started round the north of Scotland, proceeding down the west coast of Britian. Only towards the end of the Viking era were raids made directly on eastern Britain across the North Sea.

The book is not an easy read, but for those with determination it is a fine example of how recent developments in genetic analysis can throw light on the question of our origins in Britain - and at the same time correct fallacies which have crept into our understanding of these issues over the ages.

FNHM Newsletter – December 2007

Views expressed in this Newsletter should not be taken to reflect those of the Trustees or the Directorate of the Natural History Museum.

FORTHCOMING EVENTS

Tuesday 15 January 2008. Talk by Prof Richard Lane on ‘The Repatriation of Human Remains’ collected in the nineteenth century and earlier to descendants.

Wed. 12 March 2008. Talk by Dr Graham Higley, Librarian, NHM, subjects to include digitization of all NHM library material for online access.

Till 27 April 2008. Annual Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year Exhibition.

Tuesday 20 May 2008. Annual General Meeting, late morning, at University College, London, combined with a visit to their museum and collections. Fuller details nearer the time.

£18.2 MILLION CAPITAL AWARD TO NHM

The recent announcement (6 December 2007) by Dr Michael Dixon, Director of NHM, on the Comprehensive Spending Review capital settlement makes encouraging reading, but with a caveat.

Dr Dixon announced that NHM has been awarded £18.2 million over the next three years as the capital part of NHM’s Grant-in-Aid settlement from the Departure for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). This includes an allocation of £5.7 m in 08/09 and 09/10 in support of the Darwin Centre. Will it be £5.7 m over the two years or £5.7 m per financial year?

The funds are to be used for some essential refurbishment and renewal projects, ‘and ensure that Darwin Centre Phase Two can be fitted out post construction with no delays’. The same announcement mentions funding for facilities for collection development and management, workspace refurbishment, maintenance and renewal of infrastructure, renewal of the NHM public offer and improvement of facilities for visitors. At this stage it is not possible to spell out specific allocations.

The caveat: to what extent can we be assured that the £5.7 million (or £11.4 million, if it is an annual grant for two years) is not simply the British taxpayer plugging a hole in the DC2 estimates, attempting to correct errors, chiefly in undercapacity, which have already been aired in these columns?

SMITHSONIAN TROUBLES

The Times has recently reported that the Smithsonian Institution ‘needs $2.5bn to save it from total collapse’. This is the equivalent of £1.2 billion. The Smithsonian houses 142 million items, over twice as many as NHM. However it is a grouping of a number of museums, of which their Natural History Museum has comparable collections to NHM.

It would appear that much of the expenditure is needed to restore crumbling buildings. The position has not been helped by recent allegations of financial scandal and political controversy over its programmes.

Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2007

At the Natural History Museum 26th October 2007 to 27 April 2008, also elsewhere in the UK and overseas.

This exhibition is now an established, welcome autumn event at the Museum’s Jerwood Gallery. It is in cooperation with BBC Wildlife Magazine and Royal Dutch Shell, a major sponsor. It goes on tour, for instance to Tring from 8 December to 13 January 2008.

The images displayed in the Gallery are vivid, sometimes colourful, sometimes intricate, sometimes a vocabulary of other adjectives. The images are certainly well worth seeing whether taken by amateur or professional photographers, the dedication of some of whom is tremendous.

Enjoying our organised visit to view the ceiling decorations in the entrance hall of the Museum and being unsure how to review the wildlife photographs yet again, I asked a Friend of the Museum on the same visit what to do. “Publish a previous review of the exhibition”, he advised, “no-one will notice”. That raises the question “Did you?” It has to be admitted that the paragraph above is taken from my review of the 2000 exhibition.

There is a reason for this device – this deception. The point is that in all the years from 2000 a crucial feature is unchanged: the sheer quality of the winning entries has been maintained. They still make a startling impact on the viewer. They still need the dedication of the photographers. Alex Mustard, the professional who spoke at our private view, said “Luck is a small element. It’s planning and foresight that wins”. He knows: he is a frequent winner. Descriptions from other winners show their dedication to the job. “My tripod was shaking from the thunder – but my mood was electric.” “My hide was dug into the ground so my camera was at bird’s-eye level.” So absorbed was one with spawning salmon that the photographer “didn’t notice the angry brown bear until he surfaced. It was a terrible shock to see this massive face glowering at me from just a metre away”. Another was up to his chest in water; and so on.

For accuracy it must be added that photographs do not always have to be so hard to get. The young photographer of the year (under ten years old), Patrick Corning, was on holiday with his parents in Costa Rica when he discovered that one of the best places to spot local wildlife was his balcony. From there, he took the winning shot of three Squirrel Monkeys, one pulling another’s ear. “I remember thinking to the monkeys ‘don’t move’”. In the next older category (eleven to fourteen years) Jack Chapman pictures a lovely Tern, perfectly reflected in London’s River Lee. You need not go a thousand miles to take a winning shot.

Of course some aspects of the exhibition have changed, and changed for the better over the years since 2000. The presentation in the Jerwood Gallery has been perfected to complement the photographs. Each is back-lit, as a transparency, with discrete descriptions and a helpful location map. When your legs tire you can sit and see a projected show of outstanding winners from the last twenty years. If you have been often before to the exhibition, you will remember some of those amazing images. They are to be had in a £30 book called ‘Light on Earth’: more than a mere ‘coffee table’ publication. There are other changes. The category ‘Their life in our hands’ has been discontinued: small loss. New categories include ‘Nature in black and white’ with interesting results.

A most remarkable change since 2006 is the number of entries to the competition. It has jumped from 18,000 to 32,000 this year and from 55 countries to 78 this year. Those are huge increases to already large numbers. A member of the Museum’s development team thought that could be a consequence of digital photography; and it might be to do with polished publicity. 2007 is the fourth year that digital images have been allowed. Last year about eight in ten winners were digital, now it is more than nine in ten – almost all. But why this large increase now? It could be because the price of a good digital camera is now low enough for any serious photographer, professional or amateur, to own one. With that comes not just the capability of the equipment in low light or at high speed or whatever else, but also the zero cost of repeatedly shooting until the ideal image – hopefully a winner – is secured.

Simon Dickson, head of Development at the Museum, said the 2007 exhibition was bigger and better than ever. The scale of support from entrants is gratifying and important to the Museum, which has created the largest and most prestigious wildlife show there is. Many, perhaps all the winners now have an edge to them, lifting their images far above the ordinary. That is apparent in the animal portraits category where the judges no longer select plain ‘mug shots’. Dickson detects, too, camaraderie amongst the regular entrants and winners who respect each others’ work. He sees that at the awards ceremony, when there is a particular challenge for Dickson. A tricky task centres on the publication of the year’s portfolio of pictures which contains a complete set of all the winning photographs. That must be put together and printed weeks before the ceremony. No one has ever (yet) given away the secret of who the winners are.

A more subtle – too subtle? – facet of the exhibition is its conservation message. The Museum, it seems, does not want to thrust that at the visitor, but conservation is inherent within the subjects on show. The opening message itself is “Life is about timing. Being in the right place at the right time can make the difference between feeding and going hungry, finding a mate or missing out, even life or death”. An example is a picture of a mother Polar Bear and two cubs. They are on pack ice but already it has cracked open: their foot prints pointedly can be seen crossing from one ice floe to another. Each year the spring melt comes earlier and the autumn freeze comes later. A Black Browed Albatross sits on its nest, handsome and alert. Behind are many other nests but last year there were more, and more still the year before that.

It’s not all gloom and doom. An Antarctic curiosity is an underwater image of a Leopard Seal with a penguin in its mouth. The seal was trying to communicate with the photographer, repeatedly bringing him offerings of penguins – dead or alive – which he could only spurn. Did that sadden the seal; are their emotions like ours? A treat from Panama is a multiple image of a bat fishing. A series of images, all in the same picture, shows the bat in flight: swooping down lowering its feet, catching a fish, transferring the catch to its mouth. The picture tells a story, like a strip cartoon. Maybe we will see more of this multiple imagery in future. There is also a photograph that can be seen as a joke, and more humour in future would be welcome. The photo shows a Russian ice breaker with its massive bow crashed against the ice. At its stern a long gang-way reaches to the ice, allowing six or seven photographers to climb down and shoot a single Emperor Penguin. They are brightly dressed up in issued yellow and red insulated jackets. The penguin, naturally, is in formal black and white. Each human has his photographic kit. The one nearest the bird, a mere two metres away, is equipped with the longest telephoto lens you could ever see. They all look ridiculous. The photograph is aptly titled “The nature of humans” and seems to say, as Shakespeare wrote, “what fools these mortals be!”

Remember to look at your surroundings as well as the photographs. The Jerwood Gallery itself is a fine exhibition space. The great entrance hall of the museum has a ceiling whose tiles display the glory of Victorian art and craft. And as you leave, perhaps on a dark winter’s evening, look up at the Museum’s giant London Plane trees, Christmas-lit with hundreds of fairy lights.

Describing a favourite image in 2000, but it could as well be any of this year’s, my review of the exhibition concluded “here we see photography and science, art and inspiration combined to give a unique image of nature”.

Tyrrell Marris

THE BOTANICAL ROOF PANELS OF NHM

Bob Press, Associate Keeper of Botany, addressed a group of Friends on Tuesday, 16 October on the subject of the botanical roof panels in the main entrance hall of the NHM.

Bob’s main work was originally the study of plants of the Atlantic islands. Over the years he came to appreciate the splendours of the NHM building itself, more particularly the highly decorated ceiling in the main hall. These decorated panels are a key part of the didactic concept of the NHM.

To understand fully the NHM building, it is necessary to go back before it was built 126 years ago, when Montagu House in Bloomsbury housed the original Sloane collection and the vast numbers of specimens which had been brought into the museum after Sloane’s death. There was inadequate space, and the conditions were appalling. Richard Owen, a leading light in the world of zoology at the time was anxious to have a cathedral to nature, to showcase the variety and splendour of creation.

However there were problems over the design of the new building, which led eventually to Alfred Waterhouse substituting his design for the winning renaissance style design put forward by Falk. Waterhouse wanted a highly decorated building, with animals in terra cotta mouldings, extinct and mythical on the east wing, and extant on the west wing. Plants however do not lend themselves to this form of treatment. They are better suited to feature as a freize, sometimes using repeated patterns. They are also very well suited to the sort of ceiling panels which Waterhouse had in mind.

In the design, a number of factors had to be taken into consideration: lighting, the pattern of flow of visitors and the need to design air vents to remove what was delicately known as ‘vitiated air’ - air that had been breathed a few times.

We know that Waterhouse did sketches for the terra cotta mouldings, and it is rumoured that he also did sketches for the plants.

Messrs Lee and Best did the paintings. Lee was an artist who did the designs, and then scaled them up for panels. The Central Hall provided an introduction with sample specimens before visitors diffused to the lateral galleries. The panels here are in sets of nine, with the bottom six illustrating one plant. The concept was explained in an article written in 1878.

When looked at close up, the Central Gallery designs are seen to be relatively crude, in view of the fact that they would normally be viewed from a considerable distance on the floor below. Details were gilded to highlight and add interest to the design. They were surrounded by coloured borders. Twelve trees were depicted in the hall to give an idea of growth.

In the case of the area above the landing, slightly different principles applied. First, viewers being much closer to the panels can see them more easily. The rationale for the choice of species is unclear: out of some 250,000 plant species, only 56 are shown, most of them important in trade 126 years ago, many, but not all still important, such as tea, sugarcane, coffee, cotton, maize and tobacco. Less important nowadays are species such as Melanorrhoea usitata, Burmese lacquer from which shellac was made.

A third area the North Hall, now the cafe, was dedicated to the economic botany of Britain at that time. Floral emblems of the three kingdoms were used: Scotland, England and Ireland, but not Wales, because it was a principality. Some 18 plants out of 2,000 known in the wild in UK are represented, mostly medical plants such as foxglove. They are divided between ancient introductions before about 1500 A.D. and those introduced later.

While in many cases the plants illustrated are readily recognizable, in others they are less so, possibly altered to create a picture that was artistically more attractive. It is hard now to ascertain what exactly was the inspiration for these changes. Certainly some inspiration was drawn from Wallich’s Plantae Asiaticae Rariores.

The roofs were clearly at risk during the Second World War, but miraculously the bombs only destroyed the undecorated roofs. Since then there has been concern about water leaks, any such leaks of course being bad for the painting, which tends to peel in the damp.

It is known that the ceilings have been renovated twice, in 1924 and again in 1975, when it was probably cleaned. Howeveer there are no records of these events, not least because the building has outlived its carers, in the early years, Crown Properties and the Property Service Agency. Nowadays the roof decorations are regularly examined close up using a spiderman monitor operating a digital camera to detect any deterioration.

The original cost? £1975 after the ministrations of a beancounter called Ayston. The result: one of the best bargains of the century.

We had by this time moved out of the meeting room to the landing where, at the risk of cricked necks, we were gazing upwards as the designs were being explained.

So when it came to a warm vote of thanks for the speaker, there was univeral approval for the suggestion that our customary contribution for a project of the speaker’s choice should be towards a concave mirror on wheels. This will enable visitors more readily to appreciate the wonders of the roof decorations, without risk to their necks!

Strange Blooms: The Curious Lives and Adventures of the John Tradescants by Jennifer Potter. P/b. Atlantic Books. Pp. i-xxix, 1-464. £9.99

Jennifer Potter has produced a tour de force for non-gardeners and gardners alike with her detailed and enjoyable study of the two John Tradescants, father and son, both gardeners.

The elder lived from about 1570-1638, the younger from 1609-1662. Their lives thus covered the time when the age of exploration was beginning to produce from the Americas and the Far East a wealth of plants never before seen in western Europe.

The elder Tradescant, from relatively humble origins (possibly originally Dutch,) made a name for himself as a collector of plants from northern Europe, especially Holland, and as an able designer of gardens for the rich and powerful such as Buckingham, Cecil and Charles I. His son followed in his father’s footsteps as collector and gardener to Charles I. He even ventured in search of plants to North America.

Although neither man kept diaries, the author has used other records, chiefly of expenses reimbursed by their grand employers, to track their day to day activities, against a background of Britain and northern Europe as seen through the eyes of other contemporary diarists and travellers.

The result is a delight, and well worth the £9.99 cover price.

FNHM Newsletter – March 2008

Views expressed in this Newsletter should not be taken to reflect those of the Trustees or the Directorate of the Natural History Museum.

FORTHCOMING EVENTS

Wed. 12 March 2008. Talk by Dr Graham Higley, Librarian, NHM, subjects to include digitization of all NHM library material for online access.

Till 27 April 2008. Annual Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year Exhibition.

Tuesday 20 May 2008. Annual General Meeting, late morning, at University College, London, combined with a visit to their museum and collections. Fuller details nearer the time.

October 2008. Date & meeting to be arranged.

UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE STATUS FOR SCIENTIFIC INSTALLATIONS

It has recently been reported that UNESCO is planning to modify the rules for qualification as a World Heritage Site, to include scientific installations.

The announcement was made earlier this year in the context of Jodrell Bank Observatory, as one of the first candidates. The observatory was established in 1945 and since then work undertaken there has assisted in the discovery of quasars, gravitational lenses and pulsars.

A final decision is to be taken on this by the World Heritage Committee in Quebec in July.

The implications of such a decision could be significant for NHM. If Jodrell Bank, and Cern, the European laboratory for particle physics on the Franco-Swiss border, are candidates to qualify as scientific installations of enormous importance, in this case to the study of the universe, it is hard to see why NHM should not also qualify, more particularly as the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, have already qualified, and Darwin’s home, Downe House in Kent is under consideration. In particular Downe House, while of considerable importance historically as the place where the great man worked, cannot begin to match the combined historic and scientific importance of the 70 million specimens housed in the NHM at South Kensington.

There is clearly a strong case for drawing the NHM to the attention of the UNESCO World Heritage sites organisation.

REPATRIATION OF HUMAN REMAINS

On Tuesday 15 January 2008 Professor Richard Lane, Director of Science, NHM, addressed a meeting of about 15 Friends on the subject of repatriation of human remains.

Professor Lane introduced the subject by explaining that the issue of human remains provides an interface between science and society. The NHM holds about 20,000 specimens of human remains, half of which originate from U.K. These specimens are important, for they enable us, with modern DNA techniques, to study human origins and individual and community lifestyles. One specimen so studied, from some 10,000 years ago, proved to be a man born in present day Germany who moved to U.K.

Until recently, issues surrounding human remains in the NHM collections were governed by the BM and Museums and Galleries Acts, dating from the 1960’s.

However the matter was reviewed again four years ago by Prof Norman Palmer who chaired the Ministerial Working Group on Human Remains in Museum Collections. The director of the NHM at the time, Sir Neil Chalmers, put in a minority report to this committee, on the basis that insufficient attention had been paid to scientific matters. The outcome of the report was reflected in the Human Tissue Act of 2004, Section 47. DCMS produced guidelines to this act in October 2005, which took effect in 2006, overriding the older British Museum Act in that it authorized the disposal of human remains to their communities of origin.

A Human Remains Advisory Panel was established to move the debate onto the more tested grounds of clinical and human research, considering the ethics in different communities and cultures. It was realized that a moral judgement was needed to decide between ethical and medical issues. The panel which was established in 2005 decides on cases submitted either by the Museum, or by communities of origin.

From the UK itself, there was little beyond an application from the Druids. Cases are ongoing in respect of human remains from USA, Canada and New Zealand. This is in addition to a more immediate and active case, involving the Tasmanian aborigines, represented by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, in respect of specimens, some illegally exported from Australia in the 1930s, amounting in total to less than 20 items.

By bringing the debate into the realms of ethics and clinical research a stretch of clear water was established between human and other natural history specimens. Thus there was no danger that a decision to repatriate in this instance could open the door to unlimited demands that other natural history specimens be repatriated.

The Tasmanian issue dated back to an agreement between the UK and Australia eight years ago. However the British Prime Minister is not in a position to tell the NHM what to do with its specimens. The Tasmanians wanted the return to be unconditional, given that no consent had been given at the time the specimens had been removed. The Tasmanian representatives wanted no further research to be done on these remains, on the grounds that this was against their culture. The spirits of these remains were not at rest, and so the remains should be cremated to put them out of reach of researchers. It was recognized that the Tasmanian arguments were well-made.

The NHM palaeontological staff argued against this on the grounds that the specimens were of use to humanity at large, in that they facilitated an understanding of the origins of the human race. More particularly, scientifically, the specimens were important for the study of genetics, for the study of one of the first groups of humans to colonize Australia , and for the evidence which such specimens were able to provide about how they came to Tasmania , their lifestyle, and who displaced them from mainland Australia . How did they interact with their environment? Many of these questions can currently be answered by using isotype analysis. However this begs the question of what further information it may be possible to glean from these collections as research techniques develop and improve in the future.

Eventually it was agreed that the remains would be returned after full data collection from them. This immediately raised a further issue. What is full data collection? Passive or non-invasive data collection includes photography, CT or micro CT scanning without cutting (particularly important for teeth), 3-D laser images of surfaces, study of morphology: with modern techniques it is now possible to study the inside of a skull. Invasive techniques include the micro casting of selected elements and abnormalities, photo records of bone and dental histology sections, trace elements and stable isotypic analysis, which can show where the specimen comes from. Finally it includes the study of mitochondrial and mclear DN, which can now be extracted increasingly successfully from old material.

The NHM board of trustees deliberated on the issue of whether to accept the advice that full data should be collected from the specimens before their return. The announcement to this effect caused a major stir, both UK and worldwide, particularly in Tasmania. The Tasmanian Aborigine Centre (TAC) was delighted with the overall decision, but distressed at the prospect of further research before the specimens were returned. In this they had the support of the Australian government.

A further result of this was that TAC mounted a legal challenge. An injunction was placed on the NHM against doing any further research, and TAC argued that there should be a judicial review of the process. They also obtained the endorsement of the Tasmanian High Court of their status as official trustees for the specimens.

In the course of the judicial review, TAC, funded by the Australian High Commission in London, argued that the decision to continue to collect evidence was against human rights and race relations, and that the NHM had behaved unfairly in not following DCMS guidelines. They further alleged that NHM did not acknowledge the destructive nature of some of the tests.

The NHM, in challenging this, obtained the High Court’s agreement to raise the injunction, to allow non-invasive data collection. Although DCMS had an interest, this was not enough to pay for the legal proceedings, which NHM therefore had to pay for out of its own revenues.

The line-up of opinion at the time was interesting. Australian museum directors favoured return of the specimens, as did so-called experts from provincial UK collections. Manchester Museum , who had no research returned all their remains. The UK university museums opposed returning specimens, as did the scientific community generally, together with one small group claiming to represent Tasmanian Aborigines, this latter apparently in an attempt to strengthen their own rights position versus TAC. Needless to say this generated much interest in the press, particularly in Australia, where emotions ran high.

Eventually mediation, rather than a return to the court, was agreed in March 2007. The result was an agreement that NHM should continue non-invasive data collecting only. The major political hot potato was what to do with DNA previously extracted but not yet sequenced. It was eventually agreed that this would be held in liquid nitrogen by a third party, the Tasmanian Forensic Service, under joint jurisdiction. It seems likely that debates over this will continue for many years.

The resolution so far affirms that TAC have control over specimens from their people, while NHM retains access to the acquisition of knowledge. For the future, NHM needs to engage more with TAC on how the problem can be addressed before it becomes more adversarial. This will involve identifying and explaining how knowledge from these remains can help indigenous communities.

After a spirited question and answer session, Henry Barlow proposed a warm note of thanks to the speaker.

BOOK REVIEW

Dry Store Room No. 1: The Secret Life of the Natural History Museum by Richard Fortey. Pp. ix-x, 1-338. Harper Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-00-720988-0. £20.

In a dazzling display of charm, erudition, wit and love for the NHM, Richard Fortey has set out an eloquent case for the traditional values and excellence of that institution.

Having spent almost all his working life, until his retirement in 2006, in the Department of Palaeontology in the Museum, he knows more about the NHM’s contribution to the study of life on earth, and evolution than most. Moreover, having kept his ear close to the ground throughout his working career, he knows of the personal quirks and eccentricities of the extraordinary group of scholars who have in many cases spent their lives there.

The NHM has before now been compared to an iceberg. The one eighth which is visible comprises the front-of-house permanent displays, and temporary exhibitions: the animatronic dinosaurs and places where groups of schoolchildren can enhance their comprehension of the natural world. The seven-eighths, largely hidden, behind the polished doors of Fortey’s first paragraph is the dynamo of the Museum. This is where scientists of world fame in their specialities work with the collection of seventy million specimens to decipher the history and diversity of life on earth.

One of its greatest strengths is that much of the material was collected in the nineteenth century, before Homo sapiens had exerted such a devastating impact on the planet. The collections therefore represent an historical depository of information on the distribution of fauna (and to a lesser extent flora) from that time. Moreover increasingly efficient DNA extraction techniques hold imminent promise of becoming the most powerful additional tool of, though not replacement for, the traditional taxonomist.

The NHM contains the broadest, and most comprehensive collection of life forms which has ever been put together. It is this collection, unique in the world, which contains the answers to questions we have not yet begun to formulate. And it is primarily for that reason that the collection must be safeguarded and cherished. As we face, through environmental degradation and global warming, the worst mass extinction since the dinosaur era, some 65 million years ago, the collections at NHM deserve international, institutional recognition and protection.

The strength of Fortey’s book is that with quiet and wry charm he makes these points with a series of telling anecdotes. These are related in terms appealing and accessible both to the scientific professional and the non-specialist reader. That the arguments are generally understated adds to their strength. Between lines touched with melancholy at the passing of a more colourful, individualistic era is a powerful plea that world-class science should once again reign supreme at one of the world’s leading scientific institutions.

He pinpoints the crux of the problem in recent administrative changes. Instead of all the Keepers each having a place in the NHM’s management structure, those roles have been subsumed into one individual, the Director of Science. He has to argue, a lone voice, for the interests of the hidden seven eights of the scientific iceberg, the 70 million specimens behind the polished doors. He is obliged to do this amongst a group of management consultants, public relations experts and bean counters of various hues who have no understanding of the scientific issues at stake. However powerful and authoritative his voice, it is just one of many. Under the circumstances, it is scarcely surprising that over recent years, the collections have not been accorded the attention and more particularly, the study they deserve.

Classification of organisms, and nowadays, increasingly, the study of patterns of biodiversity has been fundamental to the work of the museum. Taxonomists come in all shapes and sizes as Fortey points out. Consider for example the man who classified by their length pieces of string, wrapping up parcels of specimens sent to him, including a category of pieces of string too short for further use: or, more colourfully, the Lothario who classified his many conquests among the female staff members (some perhaps achieved in the Dry Store Room No. 1 of the book’s title) on a card index: read the book for the lurid details. Some of the regular visitors were a bit odd too: witness the famous Baron Charles de Worms, glutton extraordinaire, who haunted the cabinets of butterflies and moths.

But beyond the personal quirks and foibles Fortey has done the NHM proud in chronicling its scientific successes and achievements over the years, whether it be research on the insect vectors of tropical diseases, or the insights which the palaeontological collections provide into the history of planet earth and its life forms.

Colour plates and black and white photos in the text, not to mention an index, greatly enhance this book. It will surely become required reading for anyone whose work or leisure activities brings them into sustained contact with NHM: not a national, but an international treasure.

Darwin Centre Phase 2 & the IPD Development Code: Measuring the Environmental Importance of Buildings

IPD, in association with Barclays, Bureau Veritas and Richard Ellis has very recently produced their IPD Environment Code.

This addresses in some detail the issues which should be of concern to property managers of primarily non-residential buildings. It is particularly appropriate reading for property managers either planning a new building, or fitting out one recently completed, such as Darwin Centre Phase 2 (DC2).

The introductory section points out that the Stern Review calls for immediate action in reducing carbon emissions worldwide. As a result environmental issues are moving to the top of the corporate agenda, driven by increasing stakeholder concerns. A key quote reads as follows:

“ In recent years public trust in business and government has fallen, and the onus now is very much for organisations to prove that they are addressing their environmental impacts. ... Business in the community [urges] organisations.... to “consolidate the way they manage environmental issues and to give greater focus to measuring and improving their impact on issues such as climate change and the use of natural resources”.

This, if ever there was one, is a challenge to such a flagship institution for the study of the environment as is NHM.

The document sets out in some detail, and with worked examples how a large building or group of buildings sharing facilities can measure their impact in terms of daily operation, on the environment. Core measures include energy, water and waste disposal. Qualitative measures provide an environmental health check, by scoring on alternative answer questions. Further sections deal with Key Environmental Performance Indicators, an overview of environmental regulation, internationally, and tips on reducing environmental impacts.

It would be timely and appropriate for NHM now to produce an environmental policy, and back it by annual measurements of how the policy has been successfully implemented, both for the NHM as a whole, and for the different constituent parts.

FNHM Newsletter – June 2008

Views expressed in this Newsletter should not be taken to reflect those of the Trustees or the Directorate of the Natural History Museum.

FORTHCOMING EVENTS

Wed. 19 November 2008. Ttalk on NHM and book signing by Richard Fortey.

Please note that an account of the AGM and the visit to UCL Museum will appear in the next issue of this Newsletter.

Encyclopedia of Life and Biodiversity Heritage Library

On 13 March 2008 about 17 Friends gathered in the Gavin De Beer Room, above the front entrance of NHM to hear Mr Graham Higley, Head of Library and Information Services, talk on the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) and the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), in both of which he is closely involved, as chair of BHL, and on the Steering Committee of EOL.

The NHM collection of books, drawings and paintings on natural history is the largest in the world of its kind, exceeding even that of the Smithsonian in Washington. Its collection of 25,000 journal titles is the most comprehensive, and its 600,000 pieces of natural history art make it the third largest art gallery in U.K. Some of this material will go on display for the first time in the Darwin Centre Phase 2 building when it is complete. The NHM collection is lent out to numerous different galleries across the world.

The Encyclopedia of Life has been under development for just over one year, and aims in due course to provide a website for every species which has been scientifically described. (See <www.eol.org>) It will be the first 21st century online encyclopedia, with no hard copy. All information will be available in a common format, freely available and accessible via a common portal. So far a little under 2 million species have been named, and up to 10 million species according to some estimates remain unnamed, most of them micro organisms and small insects. Of the named species, some 1.8 million are believed to be valid, the rest being invalid largely due to synonymy (different, or sometimes the same(!) authors describing the same species more than once.)

Each species has its own ‘site’, vetted by experts and carrying the attribution or source of the original information with links to the original scientific description, via the BHL. Each page also contains a ‘Wiki’ component, unmediated, which allows the upload of pictures, commentary and additional information by members of the public. It is thus an opportunity for people to engage in issues of biodiversity, and lends itself particularly to what was described as ‘layering of tools’. It can be used by many specialized groups outside the fields of taxonomy and molecular biology. Thus in addition to carrying links to genetic sequences available on the web, it lends itself to use by specialist groups: horticulturalists, conservationists, industry groups, schoolchildren, teachers and citizen scientists. An example is the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). A sample page, the Polar Bear, was shown.

Mr Higley explained that now was a particularly suitable time to launch this initiative. At a time when ever more concern is being expressed over issues of biodiversity, the traditional approaches to taxonomy, using monographs and scientific papers, are perceived as extremely slow, and for people not operating out of one of the world centres of taxonomy, inaccessible, or if accessible, only for a fee (e.g. for photocopying and mailing).

Mash-up software facilities enable data to be pulled in from a diversity of sites, using the species name field common to all biological databases. This could include video clips taken from TV programmes, for instance. Thus information from existing databases, such as the Catalogue of Life, can be incorporated. Moreover the fact that it is free, open and web-based allows information to be returned to the developing countries where such a large proportion of the specimens were first collected. Such countries, often lacking their own national natural history museums, need information on the species occurring within their boundaries. In pursuance of this initiative, a number of overseas but chiefly US foundations are prepared to subscribe large sums of money. US institutions include the Field Museum, Chicago, the Smithsonian, Harvard University and Woods Hole. Each of these, together with the Atlas of Living Australia, are giving US$5 million. This is to be matched by further US$25 million grants from the MacArthur and Sloan Foundations, and smaller donations totalling US$7 million to provide US$57 million for this work. The first 30,000 pages of the project, focussing on fish, amphibians, large animals, birds, and the botanic genus Solanum (in which are classified tomatoes and potatoes) were released towards the end of February this year.

It is hoped that in five years one million species will be filled out on separate pages in the system. This will require a further US$20-30 million. A second five year programme will deal with more difficult species which have not so far attracted attention.

A number of groups, such GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), EDIT (European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy), SYNTHESYS and the Wikipedia Corporation are currently supporting and contributing to the system, which uses existing technology. A Biodiversity Synthesis group is looking at how to use data in a scientific way, taking a macro view of species. More specialized groups include, for instance a medical group which has contributed US$2 m to look at issues of ageing. They have asked for an age field to be placed on every site. This will not only show up trends in ageing between different species, but also identify species of interest in the study of ageing. For this and similar problems it is important to develop tools for analysing and modelling data.

A large team in Harvard is working on education and outreach for the future in schools and colleges, and secondly with citizen scientists to gather new data. This means involving members of the public having an interest, not necessarily professional, but with a concern to observe and record from the area in which they live. This applies particularly for example to birders, mushroom enthusiasts, and horticulturalists. Such groups are encouraged to build extra layers onto the EOL core data. This would enable EOL to become a hub for, for example, studies of bird migration and invasive species, through the raw data it can provide.

This represents the realization of the vision set out some years ago by the great American zoologist, E.O. Wilson, which he described as being as important and as big as a space shot, but for our own planet. It will, he believes, have many spin-offs, which cannot currently be anticipated.

In comments, Dr Holloway remarked that from his own personal experience it had taken him 25 years hard work to bring 4,500 species to about the average level of completeness planned for EOL. On this basis he calculated it would take 100 taxonomist-centuries of work to cover the envisaged 1.8 million species within a modern taxonomic framework. Mr Higley accepted this, but pointed out that the first million relatively well-known species would be added quite quickly, although there were different levels of work in different data-bases. However as a minimum there will be an original description reference, linked to a valid taxonomy. He admitted that there is spotty taxonomic coverage of unfashionable areas, for example soil-dwelling bacteria and fungi. It may eventually be necessary to direct funding to these areas.

The Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) <www.biodiversitylibrary.org> aims to digitize all literature on biodiversity, estimated at some 320 million pages and drawings, and put all this on the web, in collaboration with the taxonomic community, and copyright holders. Of the 1.8 million validly named species, half were named before 1923 (currently the cut-off date for the 75 year copyright.) This emphasizes the importance of the early literature.

The BHL partners are Harvard, the Field Museum, Chicago, the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), the Missouri Botanic Gardens and the NHM. The partnership was set up two years ago and is now six months ahead of target. The Chinese Academy of Science has agreed to bring in Chinese material, and the Netherlands and Germany are contributing. Malaysia has provided US$25,000 for a trial run on literature important to that region. BHL supports GBIF and other international initiatives.

Why now? The scanning cost is between 10-19 cts US per page, and can scarcely go any lower since the major component is staff costs. Taxonomic information has greater longevity than almost any other scientific publication.

The benefits of BHL are that it helps taxonomy internationally, and gives the developing world access to the wealth of taxonomic data otherwise only available through western scientific institutions such as NHM. It will also be available to the huge community outside science, and advance the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Thus in the case of the series Biologia Centrali Americana, much of the material is relevant to local communities. It is also largely image based, few photos but with many drawings and coloured images. The latter are important for communities that are not science based. It is worth noting that many people learning to become botanical artists use this material.

Funding for BHL has been made available, US$3 m from EOL, and more is expected. The Internet Archive hosts for free and scans the material, at a cost price of 10 cts/page. The Moore Foundation has donated more than US$1 m for technology.

Of ten collections surveyed so far, 5.4 m books, 800 monographs, 40,000 journals (of which 12,000 are current) have been identified. Core, pre-1923 literature is 80 million pages, all pre-1923 literature amounts to 120-150 million pages, all of the literature of whatever date amounts to 280-320 million pages. So far 4 million pages have been scanned. It is hoped to scan up to 20 million by the end of 2008.

The site has been developed by the Missouri Botanic Gardens, and the Marine Biology Laboratory has developed a taxonomic intelligence system, linking old to modern scientific names. The scanners are not particularly high tech, and it has been found simpler to use books open at 90º, adjusting by computer for distortion, and turning pages by hand, to minimize the tedious problems which arise if a page is inadvertently omitted during page turning. An optical character recognition system is used to produce the text version of the page.

To ensure security, multiple locations are used around the globe, using a very complex identification system which allows each individual page to be identified. This is aimed at ensuring sustainability and stability within the system in future.

Some forty journals still in copyright have been scanned completely to-date with the agreement of rights holders. In the EU scanning costs are the responsibility of the national government concerned, and the Germans, the French and the Dutch are particularly active. The future BHL structure envisages English, Chinese, French and possibly German nodes for security. Problems arising from merging nodes with 5-7 major countries each hosting a copy, are formidable, and will require the commitment of our institutions. Amongst private commercial publishers, Wiley-Blackwell is already in, and other large publishers wish to negotiate. Since 80% of the literature is produced by not-for-profit or institutional publishers, and there are also hopes for getting in commercial publishers, Mr Higley believes that 90% of what we need is within reach.

The meeting concluded with a visit by Friends to the incomparable Rare Books Room of the NHM Library, where we were shown the most recent Exhibition.

Natural History Museum Annual Report and Accounts 2006-2007

The Annual Report and Accounts of the Natural History Museum for the year end 31 March 2007 only came to hand in March 2008, although apparently signed on 17 July 2007, and authorised for issue on 23 July 2007. Moreover for the year under review, no scientific report was published.

This leaves a major gap in reporting to the public on the NHM’s activities, and one which is regrettable. The scientific report at least gave the outlines of the financial performance of NHM, even if the figures did not always exactly tie up with the statutory audited accounts generally published several months later. In the case of the current set of accounts, the accounts themselves, and more particularly the notes thereto are so small that only the keenest of eyes will be able to decipher them without a magnifying glass. However this year, unlike last, the accounts do add up, and in general the Trustees’ Annual Report is more comprehensive, with an Appendix showing how core targets have been achieved.

The Remuneration Report raises an eyebrow when it discloses that the use of the Lodge for accommodation fronting onto Queens Gate is valued as a benefit in kind worth £1,502 for the year, mysteriously down from £1,512 last year. It is certainly a snip at that price, but the answer may lie in the somewhat arch comment that: ‘additional disclosure of emoluments and pension entitlements is inappropriate.’

The statement on internal control reveals that during the year certification under OHSAS 18001 (Occupational Health & Safety Assurance System) was achieved: an excellent achievement in such a large and complex organisation.

On the Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities Gains/(Losses) on indexation and revaluation of fixed assets for charity’s own use and gains on investment assets do not immediately tie up with the figures in notes 8 and 9 respectively. Almost 56% of the NHM’s total incoming resources derives from the Government Grant in Aid. Although trading activities were down by £2 million, net incoming resources improved from a loss of £1,980,000 in 2005/6 to a surplus of £9,315,000 in 2006/7.

As indicated in last year’s write-up, excess land at the store at Kimber Road has been sold for a profit of £5.6 million, which is being put towards the cost of DC2. As at 31 March 2007, assets under construction amounted to £24,405,000, although a total of £29,344,000 had been spent. Total funds received were £38,999,000. There were at 31 March 2007 capital commitments for £31.1 m, with a total estimated cost now at £76 m. “Future expenditure will also be met from restricted funds which have been pledged but have yet to be received, further restricted funds which may be generated from the fundraising campaign which continues, and designated funds already identified in Museum budgets over future years” says the note.

It will be interesting to see what effect the recent downturn in the markets has on the accounts to 31 March 2008.

Book Review

The Meinertzhagen Mystery: the Life and Legend of a Collossal Fraud, by Brian Garfield. Potomac Books, Inc. Washington D.C. 2007. ISBN 13: 978-1-59797-041-9. Pp. i-xiv, 1-353.

Friends who attended the visit to Tring, 3 years ago, on the occasion of our AGM (see FNHM Newsletter Vol. 15 No. 2) will remember that reference was made by Robert Prys-Jones to work in progress uncovering the fraudulent activities of Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen. He mentioned that a book was being written on the subject. This is the result, and it makes fascinating reading.

Not only had Meinertzhagen seriously disrupted the activities of the ornithological section of the British Museum by theft and fraud. He had additionally falsified and rewritten the voluminous diaries he kept throughout his life, to put over a life history which was to a large extent false in fields far wider than ornithology.

He was helped in this sustained endeavour by his family contacts, and a vast range of influential and aristocratic relations within the British establishment. They included Beatrice and Sydney Webb, and Winston Churchill. Many of these proved extremely gullible, accepting his stories at face value and helping to propagate them so that they were accepted as the established truth.

Meinertzhagen’s immediate family, though well connected, was largely disfunctional: a philandering and often absent father and an embittered sardonic mother who disliked the ten children she produced. It was perhaps not surprising that the lonely boy took to ornithology with enthusiasm.

His exploits as a young man, fighting the Germans in East Africa, championing Zionism in its early years, and thus working at one time in the same office as, and at cross purposes with T.E. Lawrence of Arabia, involvement throughout in top secret espionage, make thrilling reading, from his published diaries, and biographers who have accepted his accounts at face value. However an independent examination of the claims in the diaries with evidence that can be corroborated from independent sources points to a different story. This indicates that many of Meinertzhagen’s claims were pure fiction. In general, he had some knowledge and experience of the episodes in which he writes himself up in the diaries as playing a leading role, but no more. Through constant repetition to friends, his flights of imagination thus became the accepted version of events. His voluminous diaries appear to have been extensively rewritten to substantiate his fictions.

Furthermore he was well capable of laying on the histrionics. He would appear late at a black tie dinner party, and in a stage whisper request his host to hide a revolver smelling of cordite for the duration of the evening: or a female guest to hide it in her skirt. Having regaled the dinner party with one or more of his tall tales, he would leave early, his hosts and guests agog as in a stage whisper, and without any explanation, he requested the return of his revolver.

His personal life remains enigmatic. His first wife he seems to have hated from the day of their marriage, which lasted eight years. About two years later in 1921 he married Annie Jackson, a fellow ornithologist and researcher. She was kind, gentle and generous. All appeared well till about 1926, when a coolness seems to have developed between them: occasioned it seems partly by her evident recognition that much of an important ornithological paper he published in Ibis was based on fraudulent information, and partly perhaps by her realization, that Meinertzhagen had developed an obsession with two teenage daughters of his first cousin, Rachel Clay. In 1928 Annie Jackson died in what was accepted by the police at the time as an accident while returning from revolver practice with her husband. Only he was present at the accident. Many, then and now, believe he murdered her, perhaps from fear she would disclose his fraudulent ornithological activities.

One of the daughters, Theresa or Tess, of his first cousin Rachel Clay was to become his close friend and companion for the rest of his life. Unlike his second wife, she appears either to have had no qualms about her husband’s fraudulent activities, or to have suppressed them.

Meinertzhagen’s ornithological frauds often involved theft of specimens from the BM collections, and their eventual return with data labels altered to authenticate a significant extension of that species’ range, as claimed by Meinertzhagen himself. The deceit has been discovered by detailed examination, often with X-rays, of the style of the taxidermy adopted in the preservation of the specimens. The harm done by these activities is incalculable, since it gives a false idea of the range of the species, and this in turn can influence decisions on conservation priority areas. The message is that nothing in Meinertzhagen’s collection should be taken at face value, unless it can be corroborated from independent sources. The same applies to the diaries.

What was Meinertzhagen’s motive in creating round himself a life of lies? These, as the author explains brought on him the scorn both of those who disbelieved because he was a liar, and of those who believed, because he was by his own accounts a vicious killer, even discounting questions about his second wife.

Apart from its interest as an account of leading ornithologists in the first half of the twentieth century, the book reads as a stimulating investigation into both the early developments in Britian’s secret service and the mores of the British aristocracy of that era. It will therefore be of utmost interest to a far wider readership than those with an interest in ornithology.

JUNE 2006 NEWSLETTER

Views expressed in this Newsletter should not be taken to reflect those of the Trustees or the Directorate of the Natural History Museum (See Change, p. 2)



DARWIN

 CENTRE PHASE 2

The biological collections of The Natural History Museum: a unique resource; a unique opportunity. Will we

squander it?

The collections and associated libraries of The Natural History Museum (NHM) represent the most important

repository of knowledge of the diversity of living organisms with which we share the planet. The question

in the subtitle of this paper and those posed at the end articulate concern felt by many diverse stakeholders

outside the museum and, unofficially, a significant proportion of researchers and curators within it for the

long term future for this repository.

The collections have been accumulated over the past two centuries through the innate curiosity and urge to explore

and engage with the world, of the British people, coupled with a talent for analysis and understanding, perhaps

epitomized in different ways by Joseph Banks, Joseph Hooker, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. The explorers

were supported by a strong cadre of taxonomists dedicated to the science of biosystematics: curators, classifiers and

describers, both professional and amateur, who published on the inflow of discoveries and returned this information to

the world in the form of papers and books. These in turn provided a foundation for discoveries in the fields of evolution,

biodiversity, biogeography and ecology, and acted as support for the needs of agriculture, forestry, medical science and

conservation. The four scientists mentioned covered the breadth of these fields, with at least the first having significant

political influence.

As Empire metamorphosed into Commonwealth, this tradition of service to the world through exploration and research

has been maintained from British institutions such as NHM and the RBGs of Kew and 

Edinburgh

, and ones such as CAB

International that stemmed from the practical needs of the countries that now form the Commonwealth, particularly

in Africa, Asia and 
Australasia
. These institutions are the only ones that  maintain such services in support of

inventory and development, coupled with good husbandry, of natural resources throughout the world, but particularly

in developing countries where indigenous capabilities may be rudimentary. The NHM is by far the most important of these

institutions for zoology, particularly entomology.

Taxonomy is, above all, a comparative science, placing organisms in a hierarchic system that reflects as far as possible

their interrelationships through the evolutionary process, and this is critical for our understanding of their biological

properties, many of which will be beneficial or harmful to humanity. Therefore, the largely serendipitous concentration of

such a vast amount of biological material from all over the world in 

London

 is a great boon to the development, through

taxonomy, of our understanding of the diversity of life on earth, how it developed, how it is maintained, and how best to

preserve it for future generations. There is much work still do be done, building on the solid foundations already laid.

The NHM and RBG Kew have made 

London

 the focus for an international network of taxonomic specialists, greatly facilitated

now by the internet, exchanging information and material, and collaborating on a wide range of taxonomic projects. Such

overseas scientists are thus major stakeholders in the collections of NHM, as these often contain material drawn extensively

from their own countries. It is therefore essential to maintain and enhance these connections, and the reciprocal goodwill

they enshrine, to honour international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. RBG Kew are leading the way

through their Millennium Seed Bank programme, a vigorous international outreach policy and their consequent acquisition of

International Heritage Status, the awarding of which is dependent on significant support from a wide international constituency.

The NHM is currently engaged in a major redevelopment to rehouse the collections in better environmental conditions that ensure

their long term future, and to provide facilities for curatorial and research staff that come up to modern standards. However,

the building design now accepted for housing the insect and flowering plant collections falls far short of the minimum requirements

originally set out for tendering architects, in that the space available in the new building for collections would have to be increased

by roughly 30% to meet those requirements (which included only a modest capacity for expansion of 10%). There is also a significant

shortfall in space allocated for staff, most of it open-plan, with heavy reliance on artificial illumination. The new building is thus

not fit-for-purpose.

The staff complement is currently heavily skewed away from youth but towards experience. A recruitment drive in progress focuses, perhaps

understandably because of the better prospects for attracting external funding, on the more esoteric aspects of biosystematics that can be

done as well in universities; these will contribute little to the development of the collections and improvement of access to information

within them through the labour-intensive basic taxonomic activities of curation, description, classification and publication. The collections

and these more traditional activities are uniquely interdependent; they are also complementary to the more esoteric aspects.

The following questions arise:

Is it too late to halt construction of the current Darwin Centre 2 building and commission one of a design that is truly fit for decades

of use (which also prompts the question of how the current design was selected when it did not meet the minimum requirements of the brief)?

Is DCMS the most appropriate government department to have charge of a resource of such major international scientific importance,

science that underpins so much of our long term management of the natural resources of the planet?

Why is there so rarely anyone with hands-on experience of biosystematic research appointed to the Board of Trustees?

Should there be an international panel of scientists with experience of biosystematics to advise NHM Trustees and Directorate? Should

this also include representatives of the international user community (e.g. IUCN, FAO etc.)?

Is there any means within a national, European (e.g. the European Dispersed Institute of Taxonomy - EDIT), or international framework

whereby resources can be assured that will allow the continued development and exploitation of these unique collections for the

benefit of all mankind, with British scientists continuing their tradition of punching above their weight in fundamental collections-based

taxonomic research?

If the answer to the final question at least is negative, 

Britain

 may be judged to have abrogated a significant component of its

responsibilities under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the world may mourn the passing of a proud tradition.

CHANGE

Friends will have noticed that in addition to a delay in production of this issue of the Newsletter (for which the Editor apologises)

there have been significant changes to the masthead.

These have arisen from a letter by the Director of NHM to the Friends of 18 May 2006 expressing concern that The Friends Newsletter on

occasions has been critical of NHM policy.  There has also been confusion among the Trustees about FNHM’s status.

At a meeting held in the Director’s office at NHM on 24 August 2006 it was therefore agreed to ensure the Friends’ independence:

1.  That the official NHM logo should be removed from FNHM Newsletter masthead.

2.  The statement which appears in this issue below the masthead should be inserted.

3.  The registered office would be elsewhere.

4.  Friends would continue to be able to arrange meetings and visits to NHM as before.

5.  A statement would appear on the NHM & Friends’ websites as follows:

The Friends of the Natural History Museum is a company limited by guarantee with charitable status.  It is independent from the



Natural
 
History
 
Museum

 (NHM) and supports the Museum’s objectives, and in particular its commitment to maintain and foster study

of its unique collection of 68 million natural history specimens.

In the last few years it has contributed almost £100,000 to various NHM projects.

Friends will be aware from the front page article of this issue and from the minutes of the latest AGM which appear below in this

issue, of concern which has been expressed over the Darwin Centre Phase 2.

MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE FRIENDS OF THE 

NATURAL
 
HISTORY
 
MUSEUM

 HELD ON

WEDNESDAY 17 MAY 2006 AT 1.15 P.M.AT DOWN HOUSE, 

DOWNE
, 
KENT

               Present    :               Prof Eric Moonman   (Chair)

                                                                              15 Friends

                                                                              12 Proxies

1. Apologies for absence were received from Lord Oxburgh, Sir Walter Bodmer, Miss A Carritt, Miss C Dear, Mrs E Robertson,

Miss A E Barlow, Dr Peter Adams, Dame Pam Gilbert, Mr P J Wortley and Mrs J Hogarth-Scott.

2. Minutes of the previous meeting held on 26 May 2005 at 1.30 p.m. at the 

Walter
 
Rothschild
 
Museum

, Tring, were considered.

Approval of the minutes was proposed by Mr Eric Taylor, seconded by Dr Klaus Sattler.

3. Matters arising.

(i) It was reported that discussions with the 

Institute
 of 
Biology

 had been concluded, on the basis that there was no scope

at present for significant cooperation.

(ii) The question of a coffee morning at NHM was raised.  Prof. Moonman undertook to assist in arranging for such a meeting

on a trial basis.  It was felt that if Friends were encouraged to bring visitors, this might be a means of recruiting new Friends.

It would be desirable to discuss with NHM the possibility of free or reduced access to NHM’s special exhibitions.

4. Prof. Moonman reported on the activities of The Friends in the year to 31 March 2006.  On 19 October 2005 Dr Quentin Wheeler

had given a talk on his vision for the future of entomology in NHM.  Unfortunately Dr Wheeler’s resignation has just been announced

(early May 2006).

On Thursday 19 January 2006 a group of Friends visited the 
Hunterian
 
Museum
 at the premises of The Royal College of Surgeons at 

Lincoln

’s


Inn
, and were given a fascinating tour of the recently renovated Museum by Stella Mason.  Many of John Hunter’s ideas were  incorporated by



Darwin

 in his work 100 years later.

Prof. Moonman invited Mr H.S. Barlow to report on concerns that had been raised over the proposed Darwin Centre Phase 2 Building.

Mr Barlow reported that all but the foundations of the old 

Entomology
 
Building

 had now been demolished.  An exchange of letters with

Dr Michael Dixon, Director of NHM had in no way alleviated  concern both about the proposed DC2 building and the direction of taxonomy

in the Dept. of Entomology generally. Since then, using material made available under the Freedom of Information Act, it had been

ascertained that in 2001 it was estimated that 4.6 km of linear of storage space 2.5 m high was required to house the entomology and

botany departments in the new building with a 10% growth allowance.  However in 2004 in TQ 04/31 Appendix 1 – 

Darwin

 Centre Phase 2 –

note on fit for purpose it is noted in respect of the Botany & Entomology collections, that the new proposed design “Accommodates all

Entomology collections and all flowering plants in over 3.4 km of cabinets 2.5 m high (with the exception of spirit material in DC1 and

small amount of ‘supplementary’ Lepidoptera off site.”  The context in which this is cited suggests that the 3.4 km of linear storage space

was perfectly adequate.  This is a serious discrepancy.  If the new building is constructed to these dimensions, let alone incorporating

various unsatisfactory features of the proposed internal design (e.g. lack of natural light in work places) this could seriously prejudice

the long term future of entomology, and in particular taxonomy and systematics in NHM.  It was agreed therefore to seek further clarification

from Dr Dixon on whether there was any explanation for this discrepancy, before deciding on further steps.

Prof. Moonman commented on the Newsletter, and suggestions were made for possible improvements – especially the b & w photos.  Consideration

might be given to biographical profiles of leading NHM figures, or those retired but still active.  Mr Barlow asked for volunteers to

undertake reviews and to write other articles for publication in the Newsletter.  Prof. Moonman proposed, and it was unanimously agreed that

a warm vote of thanks be recorded to Mr Barlow for his work in maintaining the publication of the Newsletter.

Forthcoming Events

Tuesday, 10 October.  Talk by Dr Andrew Polascek, Executive Secretary of ICZN, on the activities of the International Commission

on Zoological Nomenclature. ‘Sense and Nonsense in Animal  Nomenclature.’

Mid-January 2007.  Talk/visit to be arranged.

BOOK REVIEW

The Knife Man: The Extraordinary Life & Times of John Hunter, Father of Modern Surgery by Wendy Moore.  Pp. i-xiii, 1-482.  Bantam

Press (part of The Random House Group Ltd.)  ISDN 0593 052099.  £18.99.

Friends who participated in the recent highly successful visit to the 

Hunterian
 
Museum

 at the Royal College of Surgeons in January

this year may have missed the above volume which was discreetly on sale on the premises.

It provides a gripping and fascinating insight into the early days (in the late 18th century) of the medical profession in 

London

,

as seen through the eyes and activities of John Hunter, after whom the 

Hunterian
 
Museum

 was named.

John Hunter was one of a number of children born to a moderately prosperous Scottish farmer from Ayrshire.  His elder brother

William headed off to 

London

 to study anatomy in 1740.  In 1748 John Hunter, having no aptitude for books or formal study, joined him,

initially acting as assistant demonstrator for his brother’s increasingly popular anatomy classes.

By this time the traditional medieval association between barbers and surgeons was breaking down.  There remained a strong traditional

element among surgeons at the time, who accepted as correct without questioning the teachings derived from the Greek & Latin classics.

However a more questioning element was creeping into the profession.  The Hunter brothers were at the head of this group in 

London

.

For anatomy classes it was necessary to secure a supply of human cadavers.  These were not easily, or at least legally, to be had.

There thus developed a brisk underground trade in corpses of all sorts and types.  The book gives a series of gripping accounts of

how Hunter’s class was supplied.  Many were simply dug up at dead of night after burial.  The corpse was unceremoniously stuffed

into a sack and discreetly delivered to the back door of the anatomy establishment for a suitable fee.  Another welcome source of

corpses was from the gibbets after a public hanging.  Corpses thus acquired had the advantage, generally, of being from individuals

in good health at the time of their death.

There can be little doubt that in his early years in and around 
Covent Garden
, John Hunter was active in grave-robbing and other

measures to secure corpses for dissection at his brother’s anatomy classes.  However whereas his brother, a competent anatomist,

was not consumed by a natural curiousity to investigate further, John Hunter was rapidly gripped by a passion for independent

investigation which marked him for life, and led him to becoming in due course the foremost anatomist and surgeon in the country,

and arguably in the 
Europe
 of his time.

Nor was the young Hunter’s curiosity confined to humans.  Any other animal was of interest, and Hunter rapidly acquired an

enormous collection of pickled specimens and skeletons, including that of a giraffe, fishes, whales: in fact a whole menagerie

of dead animals or parts thereof.  Nor were these simply regarded as a ‘cabinet of curiosities’, so popular at the time.

They were used by Hunter to illustrate the interrelationships between all living things.  Indeed the ideas which the fanatic

and indefatigable Hunter developed were eventually published, after Hunter’s death, by his brother-in-law and erstwhile student

Everard Home.  Most if not all the material was plagiarized from Hunter’s notes.  Finally Home burnt all his brother-in-law’s

papers, to prevent, as far as possible, anyone tracing his deception.  Everard Home’s writings were later in the nineteenth

century drawn on extensively by Charles Darwin in his The Descent of Man.

As the careers of the Hunter brothers developed, they gradually drifted apart – William to the bright lights of 

London

’s social

world, while John continued his researches with feverish enthusiasm.  For his own research he became more discriminating and

demanding in the types of corpses he wished to dissect: women at various stages of pregnancy were particularly valuable, as

they enabled him to study foetal development, and in particular the ways in which the nerve and blood circulation systems developed.

Nor was he above keeping a close eye on the still living, with a view to acquiring the corpse in due course.  The most famous

example was the Irish giant, Charles Byrne, whose height initially made him a person of great interest to the many Londoners

attracted to shows of physical freaks of all kinds.  As Byrne’s popularity dwindled, he took to drink, and a justifiable fear

that anatomists would seize his corpse.  With the assistance of a somewhat disreputable intermediary, and the application of

copious alcohol at the funeral wake of the unhappy Byrne, John Hunter got his prize.  The skeleton is one of the most striking

exhibits now at the museum.

Hunter’s official career was dogged by professional rows with his less enlightened contemporaries, who despised his new-fangled

scientific approach to the study of anatomy.  However he duly served in 

St George’s
 
Hospital

, with distinction, and at one time,

as a means of gaining experience enlisted as an army surgeon for two years in 

Portugal

.  This gave him valuable, if gory

experience in patching up soldiers wounded by gunfire.  The conditions of course were appalling in terms of filth and total

lack of sanitation.  Many victims thus died of gangrene, at a time when the value of cleanliness and disinfectants was completely

unknown.

Shortly after Hunter returned from his stint as army surgeon, he married 

Anne
 
Home

, the daughter of one of his military patients,

herself an intellectual and accomplished society hostess.  His income from an increasingly large following of patients enabled

him to buy large houses both in fashionably rural 

Earls Court

, and adjacent to what is now 

Leicester Square

.  His town house,

effectively two houses converted into one served as a salon for his wife’s soirées, while out at the back Hunter, or frequently

his apprentices, continued to give courses in anatomy.  The back doors were still opened at the dead of night to receive, discreetly,

a supply of corpses for the lessons, or the bodies of exotic animals which Hunter collected for his own studies.  Their skeletons

adorned the town house, and when he ran out of space there, they were transferred to 

Earls Court

, in the grounds of which Hunter

maintained a small menagerie of exotic animals.

As Hunter’s fame and reputation grew, he was consulted by all classes of society, from the Royal family, to the poorest beggar

(the latter treated for free.)  He rapidly learned to avoid operating wherever possible.  The creation of wounds with unsterilized

knives only too often allowed fatal infections to develop.

Such was his distinction that towards the end of his life, he was appointed surgeon-general in the army.  He used this opportunity

to establish a fair and progressive career ladder for all surgical appointments.

When, three years later, he died, essentially of overwork, and a stroke brought on by vicious infighting amongst colleagues at



St George’s
 
Hospital

, it fell to one of his youngest apprentices, William Clift to preserve the work of his master against the depradations

and plagiarism of his brother-in-law Everard Home.

Wendy Moore’s book gives a thrilling account of the life and times of late eighteenth century 

London

, and of the singular contribution by

a young, uneducated Scottish country boy to the development of medicine, surgery and the study of natural history at that time.

The Value of Our Collections

Quentin Wheeler, as Keeper of Entomology, in his Departmental Report for the year ending 31 March 2006 has issued a rousing call on behalf

of all the collections, not just entomological, in the NHM’s custody.  This call could not have come at a better time.  He writes:

“Expanding human populations, increasing frequent episodes of  invasive species and emerging diseases, escalating needs for effective

conservation policies and rapidly changing ecosytems combine to magnify the importance of our collections to science and society.

The biodiversity crisis makes the work of developing the collections and maintaining access to them most urgent.  Much of what

we fail to learn about earth’s insect fauna now will simply never be known; most of what we ever know of the evolution of the most

successful living taxon is or will be contained in natural history collections like ours.  Today, more than at any time in history,

is the age of natural history museums when we build a legacy of evidence of biological diversity for problem solving and posterity.

No scientific project could be of greater practical consequence nor nobler cause than ours. “

Later, he continues, impassioned: “The incredible strength of our department is that it is the only well-curated, easily-accessed,

comprehensive collection in the world where a scientist can compare side by side more than half of all known insect species.

Unless we grow in an aggressive and carefully directed way, we will become a mere historical curiosity cabinet rather than

a superb research infrastructure.  The same dismal fate is tempted by the dearth of taxonomic research in the 

United Kingdom

(and world).  Caring for collections means both meeting the physical care required by delicate specimens but equally caring

for the credibility of information associated with those specimens.  Without accurate, tested and corroborated species hypotheses

and application of those hypotheses to names on drawers and cabinets, the collections lose most of their scientific worth.

Without accurate, tested and corroborated cladistic hypotheses about the relationships among species and the reflection of that

knowledge in the curation of the collections, the collections lose most of their scientific worth.  That universities have abdicated

their role in educating taxonomists is tragic.  It is far worse that the traditional leaders in taxonomic research – in the hard work

of taxonomic  revisions,   monographs,  and   faunas – are  no longer leading.  Museums are the logical leaders because the collection

infrastructure makes such projects far more efficient than is possible on any university campus.  Taxonomy is so fundamentally essential

to credible biological knowledge and solving environmental problems (from a simple ID of a potential pest in a corn field to unraveling

the intricacies of complex ecosystems) that it will either be rebuilt now or, at much greater expense and effort, at some future date.

We can either be leaders and assure that the knowledge the world needs exists or we can wait for some taxonomic train-wreck that awakens

society to its shameful neglect of its collections information content and of the science that provides and tests that content.”

It would be hard to spell out more succinctly than Dr Wheeler has done the overwhelming importance of these collections, not just

to 

UK

 but to the world.

By implication a greater degree of commitment than has been seen in recent years is now required to ensure their continuing value to

future generations.

The misfortune is that Dr Wheeler resigned his job with effect from 30 June 2006 and returned to 

U.S.A.

FRIENDS’ CONTRIBUTION TO NHM

Up to 31 March 2000 we recorded total contributions of about £42,000 to The Natural History Museum.

Since then we have made available to various NHM projects the following amounts:

               For y.e. 31 March 2001   £4,875

               For y.e. 31 March 2002   £6,825

               For y.e. 31 March 2003   £4,500

               For y.e. 31 March 2004   £6,500

               For y.e. 31 March 2005   £9,753

               For y.e. 31 March 2006 £16,705

                                                    £49,158

                                                    ______

This, added to our previous £42,000 makes a total of £91,158.00 to-date.

FRIENDS OF THE 

NATURAL
 
HISTORY
 
MUSEUM

JUNE 2005 NEWSLETTER

FORTHCOMING EVENTS

Thursday October 19, 2005.  Talk by Dr Quentin Wheeler, Keeper of Entomology.

Thursday January 19, 2006.  Visit to 
Hunterian
 
Museum
, Royal 

College
 of 
Surgeons

, Lincolns Inn Fields

(where Richard Owen worked.)

To September 18, 2005.  Face to Face.  Photography by James Mollison of the endangered great apes.

Sherwood Gallery.

November 2005.  Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition.

Diamonds.  Exhibition to 26 February 2006.


DARWIN
 EXHIBITION IN 

USA

The 
American
 
Museum
 of Natural History in 

New York

 is planning to open a Darwin Exhibition later this year.

VISIT TO TRING

For the 14 or so Friends who came to Tring for the AGM and visit on 26 May 2005, Robert Prys-Jones’ assurance

that he would show us something special was tantalizing.  Little did we know what we were in for.

Our visit started conventionally enough with a brief introduction to the facilities – widely regarded as the

best in the world for a bird collection, with unrivalled prices for bed and breakfast for visitors at £20/night

in Tring.  Think how much it would cost in 

London

.  Moreover Tring was far removed from 

London

 where, a member

of staff who shall be nameless, opined that senior management was a greater threat to the collections than terrorism.

Tring continues to access in new specimens, but at a level of generally less than 1000 p.a.  The collection

currently boasts examples of 95% of all recognized bird species worldwide, the 

American
 
Museum

 of Natural

History (AMNH) being the other main ornithological institution.  Like Tring, AMNH also owes its collections

to the activities of Walter Rothschild.  Some 280,000 specimens were bought from Rothschild in the late 1930’s

at a rate of £1 per specimen, financed by an American philanthropist (Mrs Whitney.)

Alison Harding, the Librarian, explained how our donation from our last visit had been used to conserve manuscripts

relating to the egg collections: in some cases cellulose covers with linen tapes, in other cases, standard

boxes containing notebooks, or archive quality envelopes, all shelved horizontally.

On this occasion the exhibition in the Library was on the subject of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, long thought

extinct in its native habitat, having not been reliably recorded for 60 years.  It has however now been reliably

reported, and the Library exhibition consisted of early descriptions and paintings of this handsome bird,

together with samples from the skin collection of this species, and several very similar species.  The Ivory

Billed Woodpecker is the third largest woodpecker in the world, (the largest being the Imperial Woodpecker of



Mexico

, not seen since the 1960’s).  Other similar species include the Magellanic, and the Pileated Woodpecker,

of which we were shown specimens.  The Pileated in particular frequents similar habitats to the Ivory Billed,

which it closely resembles: hence the problems in establishing identities with certainty.  The Ivory Billed

suffered when in the late 1800’s substantial areas of forest in the southern 

USA

 where it lived, were felled.

In the 1930’s the key Singer  Tract, where it had previously survived was felled, and it has only been in the

last few months that a remnant population on the far edge of the bird’s range has been identified.

Dr Jo Cooper updated us on her work on Egyptian mummified birds, which we had been shown on earlier visits.

These have now been displayed in a temporary exhibition  since February 2005, to great publicity.  Recent

advances in X-ray techniques have revealed a number of anomalies in these mummies, such as the insertion of an

extra leg or wing.  It is unclear whether the extra limbs were inserted intentionally, whether the mummifier

was simply sweeping up spare limbs from his work place, or whether the extra limb was being used as a splint.

Nor is it clear what was the precise role of such mummified birds, frequently birds of prey.  They are thought

to have had a ritual, religious significance.  The examples which were sent to Tring many years ago by the



British
 
Museum

 were regarded as mass-market material, somewhat roughly bound.

Mark Adams is the curator of the skins collection, and explained to us progress on the refurbishment of the

cabinets where large specimens such as geese, ostriches and moas are housed.  These originally had linen blinds,

which allowed some light and much dust to get in, not to mention frequently jamming on their spring rollers.

As a result work has been undertaken to fit wooden door-frames onto the metal housing.  To these are attached

specially fitted wooden doors with specially bespoke hinges, and neoprene seals.  This will make access by

destructive mites and Anthrernus beetles much more difficult – an important point at a time where health and

safety regulations now preclude the use of any of the traditional insecticides such as paradichlorbenzene.

Instead, integrated pest management (IPM) techniques are used, checking for the presence of the destructive

Anthrenus beetle by using sticky traps, and stemming outbreaks by placing affected specimens in polythene

before subjecting to one week of freezing.  Dessicants are also used to dry out and kill the beetles.  It is

remarkable that so little infestation has so far been found, apart from certain specimens in the main museum

shown in less than air tight cases.  The total cost of developing new doors for the cases containing large

specimens is £30,000 p.a. over 3 years.

From there we moved on to a display by Douglas Russell, the Curator of the Egg and Spirit collection. The work

involves topping up jars with spirit and replacing dangerous formaldelyde with spirit: much of it routine work,

but with the occasional surprise.  
Douglas
 drew our attention to a jar he had recently found, sealed with wax

and string, the spirit dark with age.  It turned out to be a specimen from the Challenger Expedition of the

1870’s.  This was the first of several major oceanic expeditions launched to explore the sea bed round the world,

fortuitously at a time before it had been polluted.  The few birds collected during the expedition were written

up in the second of 50 volumes of reports.  However the spirit and egg material was overlooked and not written up.

The specimen in the old jar Douglas had found was of the Tooth-Billed Pigeon, endemic to 
Samoa
.  How had it ended

up amongst the Challenger material?  Investigations in the Palaeontological Dept. revealed ornithological notebooks,

from which it transpired that the specimen had almost certainly been passed from a missionary in 
Samoa
, Rev. G. Brown,

to 

Fiji

 and thence to the Challenger expedition.  The clue was the blackened and barely legible label in the jar,

wrongly transcribed, but now carefully preserved with the specimen in a new jar.  Another example of problems of

the incorrect transcription of labels occurred when a goose turned up with a label ‘extremely fat’.  Further

detailed investigation revealed that the original, mistranscribed label had read ‘Cromarty Firth’!  The importance

of retaining old labels cannot be overemphasized.

The final part of our tour involved a presentation by Robert Prys-Jones, in charge of the bird skins collection.

We were shown recent acquisitions from 
Vietnam
 and 

Cambodia

, countries with little if any facilities for preserving

new material, which are prepared to allow rare material to go to Tring.  Another recent acquisition was a specimen

of the extremely rare Bermuda Cahow.  Here a recently fledged dead juvenile was luckily recognized and sent to Tring.

Following modern curatorial practice, the skull and beak have been removed to the bone collection, and replaced on

the dried specimen with moulded replicas.  A similar story resulted in the recent acquisition of a specimen of the

Mascarene Black Petrel, normally only found in 
Reunion
.  This specimen was  killed in a car collision in 

Mauritius

,

suggesting the possibility that a small colony may also survive there.

Recent interest has focused on vultures of which there are remarkably few skeleton specimens in collections.

There was recently a huge die-off of vultures in 
India
 and 

Pakistan

 due to the use of a veterinary drug in cattle

which causes renal failure in vultures feeding on their carcases.  Negotiations with 

India

 for sample vulture

skeletons were difficult, but negotiations with the 

Pakistan

 government resulted in the acquisition of no less

than 40 vulture skeletons by Tring: We know what we want, and sometimes succeed where it is legally and ethically

possible.

Robert also showed us the bird registers which will be repaired using our Friends’ donation.  This led to a discussion

of data-basing information associated with specimens at Tring.  This work has encountered problems, not the least of

which is designing adequate numbers of fields for the data, and preparing it for inclusion in the data-base.  The

system now in use is MOA coincidentally the name of a group of birds where DNA analysis has revealed a hitherto

unsuspected species complex.

This led naturally to further consideration of the importance of the data associated with specimens.  How can the

use of such data be maximized?  How can incorrect data be recognized and corrected – more particularly when intentional

fraud is involved?  For the last part of our visit, Robert Prys-Jones in a tour de force illustrated dramatically

some of the problems and solutions.

He first took as an example the collection of finches made by 

Darwin

 in the Galapagos.  These famous specimens were

passed to John Gould in 

London

 for study.  Gould in turn passed the specimens to the Zoological Society in 

London

.

However in 1857 the collection was broken up and sold, and 

Darwin

’s historic specimens were scattered.  Dr Frank

Steinheimer has produced a comprehensive account of all such specimens that can be traced, worldwide.  In many

cases the original labels have been lost, and replaced by inaccurate ones, giving for example only the date of

subsequent donation, e.g. ‘C. Darwin, 1837’.  By searching for specimens known to be from the Galapagos with dates

and provenance coinciding with known subsequent owners of parts of the Zoological Society collections broken up in

1857, it is sometimes possible to deduce with certainty that a specimen lacking any obvious 

Darwin

 connection on

its label must have come from 

Darwin

’s historic collection.  There may yet be other such specimens to be traced in

county and provincial museums round the country.

Greater problems are encountered with eggs, since the eggs of many species, particularly ducks, are similar.

During the nineteenth and early 20th centuries, egg collecting was popular, and fraud and theft not unknown.

The egg of the Greak Auk was most highly prized.  It was the same shape and size as a swan egg we were shown

the two for comparison, including a swan egg painted to resemble that of a Great Auk.  One collector, a Mr Salmon

had a genuine Great Auk egg, but on his death, the original Great Auk egg was stolen, and replaced with a fake,

painted swan egg.  This original Great Auk egg ended up in 

Cambridge

.  The Labrador Duck, now extinct, once occurred

on the east coast of 
North America
.  There were allegedly 14 eggs in collections round the world, 2 being at Tring.

They have now all been shown at best to be incorrect identifications, if not frauds, by taking minute samples of the

membrane within the egg, and amplifying the DNA to compare this with DNA from readily identifiable preserved 
Labrador

Duck specimens.  So there are no Labrador Duck eggs surviving in known collections.  Here improved forensic techniques

facilitate accurate identification.

Many birds are not, or only very slightly sexually dimorphic, so until recently, there was no way of verifying sex

determinations by the collector in the field.  These were often wrong.  Now, similar DNA techniques involving CR

amplification of the CHD1 gene allow the sex of museum specimens of birds less than 100 years old to be determined,

and work is on hand to improve these techniques, currently being developed for use with live birds, for older museum

specimens.

The so-called ‘Hastings Rarities’ was a cause celebre in British ornithology in the late 1800’s to the 1920’s.  An

extraordinary array of rare species of birds was reported from the 

Hastings

 area.  Doubts were voiced privately behind

closed doors about the possibility of fraud.  Certain of Rothschild’s own specimens bore labels, such as, ‘Seen before

dry at Bristow’s shop’, ‘Examined in the flesh by Ruskin Butterfield’, hinting that Rothschild himself had assuaged, in

part, his doubts, by recording the sighting of the specimen before it was prepared for preservation.  Since then,

statistical analysis of the records has shown beyond doubt that they were fraudulent, and that a taxidermist called

Bristow was the culprit.  He apparently took advantage of recently developed refrigeration techniques to bring frozen

specimens to 

Britain

 to pass off as records of exceedingly rare vagrants.  None of his records are now accepted.

The star performer for ornithological fraud must however be Colonel R. Meintertzhagen.  Apart from Rothschild,

Meinertzhagen had one of the best private collections of bird skins in the world, some 20,000 specimens.  Although

he had numerous rows during his long career with NHM, (which included allegations of theft of specimens) eventually

he left his collection to them, and they are now at Tring.  He was evidently an arrogant and unpleasant man.  (See

his  biography by  Mark Crocker.)  Meintertzhagen’s particular forte was reporting on substantial extensions to the

previously known range of various species.  The first major crack to his reputation came when Alan Knox examined his

and the museum’s collections of redpolls.  Knox’s examinations of the specimens were all external, but sufficed to

show that Meinertzhagen had stolen specimens from Tring and relabeled them with fraudulent data.  Moreover missing

specimens in Tring matched the same number of specimens in Meinertzhagen’s collection.  The question then arose as

to whether this was an isolated instance, or more widespread in the Meinertzhagen collection.  Robert Prys-Jones

then examined more Meinertzhagen specimens in greater detail.  This involved looking at the chemical signatures of

the specimens: what preservatives had been used?  He also X-rayed the skins, noting the way the skull was cut and

X-ray opaque patterns, thus quickly building a picture of the style of the collection.  He found that there was no

consistent style in Meinertzhagen’s collection.  This confirmed Knox’s deductions as far as the redpolls were concerned,

and showed with a high degree of probability that up to one third of Meinertzhagen’s specimens were stolen from

Tring, and given fraudulent data.  Repeated gaps in the Tring collections, and style of preservation, have enabled

the specimens in the Meinertzhagen collection to be reassociated with their correct data.  It turns out that almost

every case where Meinertzhagen wrote and published a note on an unusual extension in the range of a species, was

fraudulent.  He was also well capable of increasing the association value of his trophies.  Thus he inscribed an

egg of the now extinct dwarf Syrian ostrich to indicate that it came from Doughty, the explorer of 
Arabia
, via T.E.



Lawrence

 to him, when he presented it to Rothschild.  Alas, it was all fiction, like much of his diaries, which survive

only in retyped form, the originals having been destroyed.

Miriam Rothschild had some idea of Meinertzhagen’s deceptions, and in her book Dear Lord Rothschild  gave an account

of his activities, which she attributed to Cyril Cunningham.  Robert Prys-Jones suddenly realized that he had never

heard of Cunningham, except from this book.

One of Meinertzhagen’s frauds has led to the rediscovery of the Indian Forest Owlet, known from 6 specimens from



India

 in the 1880’s, and one from a different location, ‘collected’ by Meinertzhagen in the early 20th century.

Pamela Rasmussen examined this specimen in detail, and found it had been relaxed and remade from a further Tring

specimen.  Fruitless searches were made in the false locality where it had been allegedly collected, until the

forgery was discovered.  When an intensive search was made in the original 1880 locality, the bird was refound.

The meeting closed with a discussion as to what could have motivated Meinertzhagen.  We shall probably never know,

but a further biography in the pipeline is likely to be of considerable interest.

After lunch, we were taken on a tour of the public galleries by Paul Kitching.

Paul Kitching showed Friends round the public part of the Museum, emphasising efforts to maintain the historical

feeling of the displays, particularly for the refurbishment of the bird exhibits. This involved the stripping and

replacing of the casing, boarding, labelling  and lighting. The birds themselves were stored temporarily in an upper

room; some had original Lord Rothschild collection labels. An early specimen  of an Emperor Penguin collected by the

Erebus and Terror expedition stood rigidly to attention, contrasting with more natural later examples where the

taxidermist had knowledge of them in the wild.

As we toured other parts of the museum, Paul drew our attention particularly to those exhibits that had been central

to the interests  of the Rothschilds, such as Charles Rothschild's dressed fleas and the zebra collection of Lord

Rothschild that included those that had been stabled in Piccadilly to draw traps and carriages. There were kangaroos,

wallabies, kiwis and other creatures that had originally lived in 

Tring
 
Park

 or elsewhere. Irony was provided by a

specimen of the Edible Dormouse, extinct after an original Roman introduction but reintroduced by Lord Rothschild to



Tring
 
Park

.  It spread from there to become widespread in the Chilterns  and recently reinvaded the Museum to become

a nuisance in the space above the ceilings. Strict conservation legislation in place now meant that special arrangements

had to be made to trap and remove them. A huge Southern Elephant Seal revealed its origins during the refurbishment

when a torn  and browned label was discovered indicating that it had been washed ashore dead in the 
Falklands
.

Another exhibit of impressive size was the reconstruction of a Moa that Lord Rothschild had taken in an open-topped

taxi to a British Ornithologists' Union conference.

We are outstandingly grateful to the members of staff at Tring who made the day particularly enjoyable and interesting.

The Earth: An Intimate History by Richard Fortey

ISBN 0 00 655137 8.  Ppi xv, 1-501 + 1-14. 

Col.

 Pls. Harper Perennial, pb. 2005.

Richard Fortey continues to fascinate and charm with his writings on matters geological.  In this book he has set out

to explain plate tectonics, continental drift and the way in which mountain ranges are formed and eroded.

In this connection it is salutary to recollect that the concept of continental drift, which had been aired over several

decades, only achieved general acceptance in the scientific community about 40 years ago.  This is all the more remarkable

when the most casual glance at a map of the world shows the high degree of fit between the east coast of 
South America
 and

the west coast of 
Africa
.

Fortey’s tour covers the surface of the globe, starting in southern 
Italy
 with 
Mount Vesuvius
.  This is perhaps the best

studied of volcanoes, with accounts of its unpredictable eruptions stretching back into antiquity  and including the

annihilation of the Roman towns of 
Pompeii
 and 

Herculaneum

.

With a deft touch, Fortey describes the present day aspect of 
Mount Vesuvius
, and the neighbouring countryside, together

with an explanation of the eruptions which have so dominated the history of the region.  This method is followed

throughout the book, as the author hops from continent to continent, explaining how the forces of plate tectonics

throw up and double over the mountain ranges we know today.  Erosion from rain ice and glacier have repeatedly worn

away mountain ranges in the world’s geological history, creating silts and sediments.  These in turn have been reprocessed

through subduction into the mantle of the earth, only to be spewed out again in a different form, and possibly a different

place, millions of years later.

As a result the surface of the earth is slowly but inexorably changing all the time, and continental plates ride on

the surface of the earth, driven by powerful forces in the earth’s molten centre, which we are only now beginning to

understand.  It is the currents of molten matter deep below the earth’s surface which drives the plates.  At one time

in the dim distant geologic past, the land masses of the world were united in a supercontinent, now known as Pangaea.

In due course Pangaea was riven apart by tectonic forces, creating mountain ranges, and vast oceans, like the 
Atlantic

and Pacific.  These movements still continue, and we now have sufficiently accurate instruments to measure their movements,

in terms of millimeters per year.

With Fortey’s assistance we are also able to learn of the importance of the mid-Atlantic, and other ocean ridges, where

magma from deep in the earth emerges in the ocean bed, deep beneath the sea, to power the movements of land accretion

and subduction the latter referring to cases where whole continental plates are forced, one below the other.  It is

these forces where tectonic plates collide which generate earthquakes, and as we have seen recently on occasion vast tidal

waves, with such destructive effects.

The many different processes which take place on the earth’s surface are described in detail with examples from all over

the world: the European Alps, the extraordinary  contortions which have created the geological potpourri of 

Newfoundland

,

and the basic geological principles so clearly evident and active in the 
Hawaiian islands
.  All this is delivered in lively

readable prose, and with reference to the great geologists of the last 200 years, such as Charles Lyell, Arthur Holmes,

and particularly Eduard Sness, author of Das Antlitz der

Erde The Face of the Earth, published in four massive volumes, 1883-1904.

The earth’s surface is always changing, in response to weather and the central molten dynamo, which is the earth’s core,

and Fortey repeatedly illustrates how so much of our history and life is dependent on geological forces.

The forces of change have been so thorough in the earth’s geological history of some 4,550 million years that samples of

the earliest rocks, which have not subsequently been reprocessed, and changed almost beyond recognition, are hard to find.

Yet they exist, in geologically choice areas in 
Greenland
, 
Newfoundland
 and 

western Australia

.  In their composition they

bear witness to the conditions of the earth in those distant chimes.  The earth’s atmosphere then was one in which no

modern day plant or animal could survive.  By analysis of the composition of the rocks, and dating techniques which have

developed by leaps and bounds, we can get some idea of conditions then.

In the same way, ultra-modern nuclear physics laboratories provide facilities for testing what happens to different

chemicals when they are subject to the massive temperatures and pressures which prevail thousands of kilometers below

the surface of the earth.  Treating minute samples of such ingredients from the centre of the earth to such temperatures

and pressures gives an insight into the origins of different rocks now found on the earth’s surface.  By extrapolation

therefore it is possible to work out, with a degree of accuracy unimaginable 50 years ago, what is happening in the earth’s

molten centre to drive the stately but unstoppable tectonic movements on the earth’s surface.

This book is a masterly tour de force, with an attracti