Museums

Abstract

THE article in NATURE of December 9 on “A Suggested Royal Commission on Museums” leads me to offer a few comments, based on recent experiences. It is trite to say that all museums are understaffed, but it may be worth while to point out some of the consequences of this condition. Being a student of wild bees (Apoidea), I have long been interested in the available collections of these insects. In 1920–21, I made a catalogue of all the species of bees in the British Museum, and also listed those at Oxford and Cambridge. Returning to America I catalogued the bees in the U.S. National Museum and the American Museum of Natural History. One of my principal objects was to bring about exchanges between these institutions, so I noted in most cases the size of the series. The authorities everywhere were extremely cordial to the exchange idea, and it was evident that if each museum would distribute its duplicates, which were often actually in the way, all would be greatly enriched, to the advantage of students on both sides of the Atlantic. Up to the present, it has been impossible to carry out the proposed plans, because the curators have been fully occupied in other ways. The prospects will necessarily remain unfavourable, so long as each man has many more duties than he can attend to. The staffs should be increased, and should include at least two types of men—those who are principally concerned with research and those who are primarily curators. The latter type, with a passion for collecting and arrangement, is not to be found everywhere, and is not produced by the universities. It involves, however, a high grade of ability, and should be zealously sought by heads of museums.