The Sweep of Time

The Sweep of Time

February 11, 2016

Article originally submitted for The Leaflet (June 2014) by Brian Witte, PhD, BRIT Research Associate

Most of us live in the moment. Paycheck-to-paycheck, living for the weekend, summer vacation, twitter updates. Updates now are measured in seconds. America, too, is a young nation. Few places west of the Appalachians boast buildings over 150 years old, and most of us live in suburbs built in the decades following World War II. So much around us is new…even our landscapes are new, transformed by mechanized farming, car culture, and introduced species.

That’s not entirely news, and it’s not entirely new, either.  Look, for example, at this sheet I recently encountered while tidying up a database of digitized herbarium specimens.

Click to enlarge and read labels.

This was one of the last collections by Julien Reverchon, a pioneering botanist in Texas. His collection of 20,000 specimens, many of which are held at BRIT, are some of the first collections from the Southwest, and many of them played an important role in early floras produced in the golden age of American Natural History. There is a lot of history that could be read just from this one specimen. In this case, however, it is the date (at the bottom left corner) noted by a curator at the Missouri Botanic Garden that drew me: 4-22-04. When the data for this specimen was entered verbatim in to our online database, the software “autocorrected” the date to April 22, 2004. The discrepancy between the collector, who died in 1905, and the putative collection date of a scant 10 years ago, caught my eye and the error was fixed.

I was reminded of this archival error later when I was annotating specimens for my own project at BRIT. I wrote on a freshly printed annotation label: Astragalus mollissimus var. bigelovii det. Brian Witte 4/15/14. And suddenly the gulf of centuries opened before me. Someone in 2114 may look at this specimen and chuckle at the short-sightedness of that Brian fellow in thinking that “14” would of course refer to 2014…just as “04” referred to 1904.

I am sure that any collector who has contributed to an herbarium has thought of his or her work as a gift to posterity, but I doubt very much that many of us have thought in terms of centuries. Even those of us who delight in reading books on history imagine that we, ourselves, will one day be just the history that others read.

Now that I am aware of this focus on immediate, I see evidence throughout the collection. Annotations abbreviated LHS mean they were added by Lloyd Herbert Shinners, the former curator of the herbarium. LEA, however, collected several dozen specimens in the 1960’s, and I have been unable to ascertain his or her full name. Doubtless the herbarium director at the time knew, but that knowledge may have died with him. Witness, too, the references to locations long since gone or atrophied into nothingness. One example:

William Mahler, the collector and past director of the herbarium, may well have known where the Buckner Farm was, and he would no doubt have gladly told you. The opportunity, however, has passed.

I am hardly the first to have realized these challenges. Our data entry protocols now require four digit years, standardized spelling for the names of collectors (no more three letter abbreviations), and locations given in GPS-compatible coordinates accurate to within a meter.

And yet, I wonder what our descendants a millennium from now will think when they chance upon an archaic collection of data and think “2014…I wonder what calendar they were using back then?”

Leave A Response

Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.

Related Articles

The Living Herbarium: Instructions for Life

Article originally published in The Leaflet (April 2014) by Brian Witte, PhD, BRIT Research Associate (Disclaimer: The technical aspects of this article are dramatically simplified in the interests of communicating with an audience entirely unfamiliar with molecular biology. Send me an email ( bwitte@brit.org ) if you would like a deeper explanation.) We like to repeat, loudly and often, that there are over 1 million plant specimens in the Philecology Herbarium at BRIT. It’s a nice, big, round number, and it sounds cool when tour groups come through. What if I told you that as imposing as that number sounds, the real number is closer to a thousand billion (1,000,000,000,000) plants*? The goal of an herbarium is to preserve plants. The ideal specimen, in many respects, has all the essential...
Read More >

The Living Herbarium: Many Hands Make Godzilla

Article originally published in The Leaflet (May 2014) by Brian Witte, PhD, BRIT Research Associate There is a stereotype of the scientist as a lone genius, laboring in obscurity until their “Eureka!” moment changes the world. If Hollywood is to be believed, this Eureka moment is usually followed by the destruction of Tokyo and/or New York by a giant robot/genetic mutant/superstorm. In reality, we have a tragic lack of giant robots, and nothing that we’ve done in the herbarium has (yet) threatened a major metropolitan area. We also rely heavily on collaboration, rather than solitary toil. In fact, I would venture to say that collaboration is the fundamental characteristic of science. NOT what we do…exactly. Nowhere is this more on display than in the herbarium at BRIT. Over the past month,...
Read More >

Insert Clever Title Here

“Hell — is sitting on a hot stone reading your own scientific publications.” ~ Erik Ursin, fish biologist. One of my favorite journal articles is a little number called “How to write consistently boring scientific literature." Penned by Kaj Sand-Jensen at the University of Copenhagen, this piece is a glib editorial about technical writing…that was somehow published and promulgated by a technical writing source. (Brilliant!)
Read More >

Best. Paper. Ever.

I’ll admit it. I’m biased toward brevity. It’s hard to write succinctly, though. Blaise Pascal knew it (“I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had time to make it shorter”). Shakespeare knew it, too (“Brevity is the soul of wit”). You can imagine, however, how additionally difficult it is to succinctly write for science, a field defined by its details. So when I come across science writers practicing an economy of words, I’m doubly impressed.
Read More >