Memorandum submitted by E.F. Greenwood
MSc, FLS, FMA
INTRODUCTION
My interest in the work of this committee is
twofold.
1.
My work on the Lancashire flora (flowering plants
and ferns) depends on the continuing research into the systematics
and taxonomy of the British flora and;
2.
My professional museum experience provides expertise
in the problems facing regional and local museums and especially
in making collections available to the public.
LANCASHIRE FLORA
Systematics and taxonomy
To write a local flora requires a detailed knowledge
of the taxonomy of the plants, including critical groups and horticultural
taxa, found in the area to be studied. It is impossible for one
person to have this knowledge and reliance has to be made on the
support and expertise of others. In a little studied area, such
as northern Lancashire, fewer than ten people have been able to
contribute significantly to the gathering of data over the last
40 years. Significant help requires the systematic survey at different
times of the year of each of the 462 tetrads (2 x 2 Km squares
of the National Grid). Each of the volunteers who undertook detailed
surveys at different periods over the years achieved high levels
of competence in identifying British plants. Nevertheless I have
had to visit every tetrad, often on many occasions over the years,
to achieve even reasonable cover. Without this data and review
of historical information, it is impossible to monitor change
at the local level. Data from these local surveys is submitted
regularly for national schemes.
However as recorder for VC 60, it is essential
that I have access to the latest research on the systematics of
the British flora. Today the Botanical Society of the British
Isles (BSBI) provides this information. This is a voluntary organisation,
although in recent years it has received project funding. Nevertheless,
the Society prides itself on the collaboration it obtains between
professional taxonomists and the amateur sector. This collaboration
enables the Society to undertake national surveys, publish a scientific
journal, Watsonia, and hold scientific conferences and
to publish monographs on identifying the British vascular flora.
During the 1950s and 60s, Britain enjoyed a
remarkable period of training and research in taxonomy. This led
to such "landmark" publications as the Flora of the
British Isles (1957), Flora Europaea (1964—1980)
and Atlas of the British Flora (1962) and their subsequent
revisions and new editions etc. Over the last 40 years or so many
monographs and identification aids, mostly published by the BSBI,
have been published but all have relied on the professional expertise
of systematists most of whom were trained in the 1950s and 60s.
Today the last products of this period are being published, eg
Sedges of the British Isles (2007), Flora of Great Britain
and Ireland (1996 ð→ñ (two out of five
volumes published to date)) and "Hybrids in the British Flora"
(to be published 2008/9). All these books, fundamental to the
study of the flora of the British Isles rely on professional but
now retired taxonomists. Amateur botanists have also contributed
to or written a number of manuals or handbooks, eg works on Rosa
and Rubus. Unfortunately, most amateur botanists do
not have access to modern scientific techniques and facilities
to enable them to fully utilize the available resources needed
for modern taxonomy. Once gone (and death is inevitable) it will
be difficult to replace the lost expertise of the present but
elderly generation of taxonomists for many years, even if training
courses (at degree and post graduate level) started today.
Nevertheless a few and even quite young systematists
are employed today but they are rarely allowed to do taxonomic
research. It is therefore clear that the three main national institutions
will have to recruit new staff from overseas and it is questionable
if their duties will embrace the taxonomy of British biota in
the face of world priorities.
Yet it is my view that if there is to be any
credence in continued monitoring and conservation of the British
flora, the need for professional taxonomic and systematic expertise
in the face of relentless environmental pressures (eg climate
change, atmospheric pollution etc), is never more urgently needed.
Data collection, management and dissemination.
As a vice-county recorder for the BSBI my data
is shared with the hub or centre of the national botanical recording
network for forwarding to relevant bodies and at the 10km square
level to the public via the internet. However the primary data
for VC 60 remains with me.
I have long been an advocate of local biological
recording centres, and many years ago established the N.W. Biological
Field Data Bank for site based data covering the old counties
of Lancashire and Cheshire at what is now World Museum Liverpool
(Greenwood, 1971). It was also my intention, but never achieved,
to link the data bank records to voucher specimens in the herbarium,
hence my belief that suitable places for such centres were in
museums. Unfortunately in the non-digital age this was difficult
but today it should be no problem to make such links. The data
bank at Liverpool has been inactive for well over ten years and
although the data has been transferred to more recently established
biological record centres, where appropriate, remaining data has
been boxed and put in "deep" storage. I fear that in
time it will be forgotten and perhaps lost. This will then follow
the pattern of previous schemes in the region, which my original
ideas were designed to halt.
Whilst the detailed records of the BSBI may
well be passed to local biological record centres, where they
exist, in Lancashire this is not possible as there is no centre.
However collaboration takes place with Lancashire County Council,
which maintains a database for their own largely planning purposes
and the Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and N. Merseyside.
Nevertheless the detailed information in my possession, accessed
via the BSBI, is rarely requested and it must be remembered I
am a volunteer and I could not cope with many enquiries.
THE ROLE
OF LOCAL
AND REGIONAL
MUSEUMS
Shortly before I retired in 1998, I presented
a report to a specialist group at the Annual Meeting of the Museums
Association, detailing the loss of natural history curators (unpublished).
I believe that since then the decline has continued. Despite recent
reports on collections in museums (see Wilkinson, 2005 and the
Museums Journal for July 2007 for recent projects and reports
in this field) it is my perception that natural history, if mentioned,
is a very low priority in the work of arts based local and regional
museums and that the decline of natural history curators continues.
Furthermore those that remain, or are put in charge of the collections,
hold junior posts or have little knowledge of the collections.
As a consequence they are hardly in a position to comment within
the wider context of collection curation and accessibility. Indeed
it seems to me that there are few in more senior positions or
on governing bodies, who have the least idea of the significance
of natural history collections and despite the emphasis on the
so called public access to collection's they remain largely inaccessible.
When I was professionally engaged in museums,
I was passionate about public access and use of collections not
meant for traditional public display. This was as relevant to
the humanities as to natural history. Over many years we developed
at Liverpool a methodology for public access to the collections
through the Natural History Centre (Greenwood et al., 1989).
However the constraints of little space for storage and consultation
of collections and the lack of documentation of the collections,
all ultimately dependant on the lack of finance, prevented any
meaningful breakthrough in getting the collections accessible
to the public. Yet over the years curators were ever optimistic
that conditions would improve and in the post war period many
important collections were acquired for the nation. Many have
said the curators were foolhardy.
Then the opportunity arose in the 1990s when
for World Museum Liverpool new space and lottery funding coincided
to re-develop the museum. The new Museum opened in 2005 and has
greatly improved storage conditions and access to the natural
history collections since the committee last considered these
issues. It has also provided new and improved conditions for the
Natural History Centre (with a similar hands-on centre for the
humanities) and new public displays, yet the crucial funding for
collection documentation has never been forthcoming. Without this
meaningful accessibility to the collections is strictly limited.
In my work on the Lancashire flora I have felt
it essential to consult a wide variety of sources in county record
offices and museums around the country. In general terms access
to collections of archives is much easier than to natural history
collections. Almost all record offices have some form of digital
access available either on line or locally. This is rarely available
for natural history and where natural history curators have been
lost it sometimes takes great persistence to get access of any
kind.
There are exceptions. A group of natural history
curators, without significant funding, have made considerable
progress in documenting their collections and making them available
on the internet. This has mostly involved some of the smaller
collections but the Manchester Museum amongst the larger museums
has made progress. Like Liverpool the Museum benefited from lottery
funding for improving storage (for most of my professional career
conditions were appalling) and other funding has enabled progress
to be made in documenting their collections. For me personally
there are considerable holdings of northern Lancashire voucher
specimens at Manchester and this has enabled me to thoroughly
review the significance of a number of species accidentally introduced
with imported grain 100 years ago. I am therefore able to do much
of my work remotely from home and then only consult the specimens
themselves at a later date if needed. Nevertheless funding for
collection documentation remains largely unavailable but through
the group of natural history curators, a system has evolved utilizing
the internet and the public to get the latter to document the
collections remotely (Wolstenholme & Humphrey, 2006).
The end product of this initiative enables the
user anywhere in the world to interrogate the collections remotely,
to not only see the data attached to the label, but to see the
specimen and original labels in full colour. This is making collections
truly available. Yet it is unrealistic to expect the general public
to complete the work at even one large institution for free. A
job that is fundamental to the work of the institution and that
should be considered as a priority for basic funding, not only
by the governing body, but also by the Government
Unfortunately and put simply, natural science
in museums is not a priority. I believe provincial collections
are at risk from neglect or possibly disposal.
REFERENCES
Greenwood, E.F. (1971). North West Biological
Field Data Bank. Museums Journal, 71: 7-10.
Greenwood, E.F., Phillips, P.W. and Wallace,
I.D. (1989). The natural history centre at the Liverpool Museum.
The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship,
8: 215-225.
Wilkinson, H. (2005). Collections for the
future. Report of a Museums Association Inquiry. Museums Association.
London.
Wolstenholme, L. and Humphrey, T. (2006). Documenting
herbarium specimens from home—can you help? BSBI News,
103: 41.
E.F.Greenwood
I have spent a lifetime studying the flora of
northern Lancashire and for part of the area (VC 60) I am the
BSBI's vice-county recorder. I was also for a period an editor
of their journal Watsonia. Currently I am writing a local
flora of northern Lancashire.
In my professional life I curated the botany
collections at what is now known as the World Museum Liverpool.
However for many years before retiring in 1998 I was head of the
Museum reporting to the Director of the then National Museums
and Galleries on Merseyside with direct access to the Board of
Trustees. During this period I was responsible for the Museum
and all its collections. I feel my main achievement was to develop
the master plan for acquiring new space (acquisition of the old
technical college situated below the Museum) and developing an
essentially new and enlarged museum for public display, improved
public access and new storage for the collections.
In my own time I maintained a continuous commitment
to the Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and N. Merseyside
and of which I am currently a trustee.
Since my retirement I have devoted my time to
the study and conservation of the Lancashire vascular flora.
| 
